Let Me Just Add That While the Piece in Newsweek Is Extremely Annoying

Home , Andrew Dessler, David Karoly, Heat Wave (1998), Inez Fung, John Collee, Mark Boslough

From: Michael Oppenheimer To: Eric Steig; Stephen H Schneider Cc: Gabi Hegerl; Mark B Boslough; [email protected]; Thomas Crowley; Dr. Krishna AchutaRao; Myles Allen; Natalia Andronova; Tim C Atkinson; Rick Anthes; Caspar Ammann; David C. Bader; Tim Barnett; Eric Barron; Graham" "Bench; Pat Berge; George Boer; Celine J. W. Bonfils; James A." "Bono; James Boyle; Ray Bradley; Robin Bravender; Keith Briffa; Wolfgang Brueggemann; Lisa Butler; Ken Caldeira; Peter Caldwell; Dan Cayan; Peter U. Clark; Amy Clement; Nancy Cole; William Collins; Tina Conrad; Curtis Covey; birte dar; Davies Trevor Prof; Jay Davis; Tomas Diaz De La Rubia; Andrew Dessler; Michael" "Dettinger; Phil Duffy; Paul J." "Ehlenbach; Kerry Emanuel; James Estes; Veronika" "Eyring; David Fahey; Chris Field; Peter Foukal; Melissa Free; Julio Friedmann; Bill Fulkerson; Inez Fung; Jeff Garberson; PETER GENT; Nathan Gillett; peter gleckler; Bill Goldstein; Hal Graboske; Tom Guilderson; Leopold Haimberger; Alex Hall; James Hansen; harvey; Klaus Hasselmann; Susan Joy Hassol; Isaac Held; Bob Hirschfeld; Jeremy Hobbs; Dr. Elisabeth A. Holland; Greg Holland; Brian Hoskins; mhughes; James Hurrell; Ken Jackson; c jakob; Gardar Johannesson; Philip D. Jones; Helen Kang; Thomas R Karl; David Karoly; Jeffrey Kiehl; Steve Klein; Knutti Reto; John Lanzante; [email protected]; Ron Lehman; John lewis; Steven A. "Lloyd (GSFC-610.2)[R S INFORMATION SYSTEMS INC]"; Jane Long; Janice Lough; mann; [email protected]; Linda Mearns; carl mears; Jerry Meehl; Jerry Melillo; George Miller; Norman Miller; Art Mirin; John FB" "Mitchell; Phil Mote; Neville Nicholls; Gerald R. North; Astrid E.J. Ogilvie; Stephanie Ohshita; Tim Osborn; Stu" "Ostro; j palutikof; Joyce Penner; Thomas C Peterson; Tom Phillips; David Pierce; [email protected]; V. Ramaswamy; Veerabhadran" "Ramanathan; Sarah Raper; Phil Rasch; Kathryn Rauhut; Doug Rotman; Terry L. Root; Robert "Sausen, DLR"; jsanter; John Schellnhuber; David Schimel; Michael Schlesinger; Gavin Schmidt; Christina L. Schomer; Lynda Seaver; Dian J. Seidel; Ted Sheppard; s sherwood; Adrian Simmons; socci anthony; brian soden; Susan Solomon; Ken Sperber; Anne Stark; Thomas Stocker; Ronald J Stouffer; [email protected]; Karl Taylor; claudia tebaldi; Joao P" "Teixeira; Simon Tett; Thomas A." "Tombrello; David Thompson; Lonnie Thompson; ELLEN THOMPSON; Peter" "Thorne; Mike Wallace; Bud Ward; David "Warrilow (GA)"; Warren Washington; Andrew Weaver; Michael Wehner; Frank Wentz; Penny" "Whetton; Dean N. Williams; Gordon Yano; Francis W. Zwiers; Erik M" "Conway; Sanjay Khanna; Graham Cogley; Jeffrey Kargel; W. Crawford Elliott; John Weyant; Anthony Janetos; Alison" "Sowden; Vernon Squire; Eric Garen; Peter Cross; Charles Zeller; Ian Murdock; Victoria A Arroyo; Rashida Leonard; Stephanie Fontenoy; John Collee; Sarah-jane Potts; Greg Dutton; ; Richard B. Rood; Brien Seeley; Mark Seeley; Oliver Morton; dh ; Cheryl H; Richard" "Somerville; Martin Heimann; Don Kennedy; Heidi Cullen; Shari Bell; Rebecca Bratspies; Pete Myers; Michael Oppenheimer; Naomi Oreskes; Boslough; Ben Santer; Tom Wigley; [email protected] Subject: RE: response to Newsweek Date: Monday, May 31, 2010 11:09:09 PM

ALL:

Let me just add that while the piece in Newsweek is extremely annoying, and my general view is that such attacks should not go unanswered, I suggest not spending a large amount of time on it, such as group letters often take. A primary reason for pushing back on this sort of thing is to chasten and educate the journalists and editors responsible. Few of the original readers see the rejoinder. But Newsweek is no longer what it once was, and may not be around for long. Detailed letters don’t get printed anyway. There are lots of fires to put out, and this isn't necessarily the biggest. So it would be a better use of everyone's time if only one or two of this group, those who feel moved to do so, respond with a few sentences, individually.

Michael

Michael Oppenheimer Albert G. Milbank Professor of Geosciences and International Affairs Department of Geosciences and Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs Robertson Hall 448 Princeton University Princeton, NJ 08544

Tel: 609-258-2338 Fax: 609-258-6082 Website: http://www.princeton.edu/step/people/faculty/michael-oppenheimer/

-----Original Message----- From: Eric Steig [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, May 31, 2010 9:06 PM To: Stephen H Schneider Cc: Gabi Hegerl; Mark B Boslough; [email protected]; Thomas Crowley; Dr. Krishna AchutaRao; Myles Allen; Natalia Andronova; Tim C Atkinson; Rick Anthes; Caspar Ammann; David C. Bader; Tim Barnett; Eric Barron; Graham' 'Bench; Pat Berge; George Boer; Celine J. W. Bonfils; James A.' 'Bono; James Boyle; Ray Bradley; Robin Bravender; Keith Briffa; Wolfgang Brueggemann; Lisa Butler; Ken Caldeira; Peter Caldwell; Dan Cayan; Peter U. Clark; Amy Clement; Nancy Cole; William Collins; Tina Conrad; Curtis Covey; birte dar; Davies Trevor Prof; Jay Davis; Tomas Diaz De La Rubia; Andrew Dessler; Michael' 'Dettinger; Phil Duffy; Paul J.' 'Ehlenbach; Kerry Emanuel; James Estes; Veronika' 'Eyring; David Fahey; Chris Field; Peter Foukal; Melissa Free; Julio Friedmann; Bill Fulkerson; Inez Fung; Jeff Garberson; PETER GENT; Nathan Gillett; peter gleckler; Bill Goldstein; Hal Graboske; Tom Guilderson; Leopold Haimberger; Alex Hall; James Hansen; harvey; Klaus Hasselmann; Susan Joy Hassol; Isaac Held; Bob Hirschfeld; Jeremy Hobbs; Dr. Elisabeth A. Holland; Greg Holland; Brian Hoskins; mhughes; James Hurrell; Ken Jackson; c jakob; Gardar Johannesson; Philip D. Jones; Helen Kang; Thomas R Karl; David Karoly; Jeffrey Kiehl; Steve Klein; Knutti Reto; John Lanzante; [email protected]; Ron Lehman; John lewis; Steven A. 'Lloyd (GSFC-610.2)[R S INFORMATION SYSTEMS INC]'; Jane Long; Janice Lough; mann; [email protected]; Linda Mearns; carl mears; Jerry Meehl; Jerry Melillo; George Miller; Norman Miller; Art Mirin; John FB' 'Mitchell; Phil Mote; Neville Nicholls; Gerald R. North; Astrid E.J. Ogilvie; Stephanie Ohshita; Tim Osborn; Stu' 'Ostro; j palutikof; Joyce Penner; Thomas C Peterson; Tom Phillips; David Pierce; [email protected]; V. Ramaswamy; Veerabhadran' 'Ramanathan; Sarah Raper; Phil Rasch; Kathryn Rauhut; Doug Rotman; Terry L. Root; Robert 'Sausen, DLR'; jsanter; John Schellnhuber; David Schimel; Michael Schlesinger; Gavin Schmidt; Christina L. Schomer; Lynda Seaver; Dian J. Seidel; Ted Sheppard; s sherwood; Adrian Simmons; socci anthony; brian soden; Susan Solomon; Ken Sperber; Anne Stark; Thomas Stocker; Ronald J Stouffer; [email protected]; Karl Taylor; claudia tebaldi; Joao P' 'Teixeira; Simon Tett; Thomas A.' 'Tombrello; David Thompson; Lonnie Thompson; ELLEN THOMPSON; Peter' 'Thorne; Mike Wallace; Bud Ward; David 'Warrilow (GA)'; Warren Washington; Andrew Weaver; Michael Wehner; Frank Wentz; Penny' 'Whetton; Dean N. Williams; Gordon Yano; Francis W. Zwiers; Erik M' 'Conway; Sanjay Khanna; Graham Cogley; Jeffrey Kargel; W. Crawford Elliott; John Weyant; Anthony Janetos; Alison' 'Sowden; Vernon Squire; Eric Garen; Peter Cross; Charles Zeller; Ian Murdock; Victoria A Arroyo; Rashida Leonard; Stephanie Fontenoy; John Collee; Sarah-jane Potts; Greg Dutton; ; Richard B. Rood; Brien Seeley; Mark Seeley; Oliver Morton; Cheryl_H; Richard' 'Somerville; Martin Heimann; Don Kennedy; Heidi Cullen; Shari Bell; Rebecca Bratspies; Pete Myers; Michael Oppenheimer; Naomi Oreskes; Boslough; Ben Santer; Tom Wigley; [email protected] Subject: Re: response to Newsweek

Steve,

I wholeheartedly agree of course. My point is mostly that we shouldn't bother responding in detail to this particular attack on scientists' credibility -- short of perhaps pointing out it is old, tired, and unsubstantiated. Since the editorial says that we are 'defensive' it is particularly important not to come across as defensive in this case. What I don't think is working though is continuously insist that 'we have done nothing wrong' (even though it is mostly true).

Ok, enough from me. I'll be slicing up ice in the freezer at the National Ice Core Lab. (The Wall Street Journal had a 'nice' article today claiming that this work -- on the new 'WAIS Divide' ice core will solve the question of whether CO2 leads temperature or the reverse. Dick Lindzen and John Christy were the two 'experts' they interviewed. Hmm,.

Eric

> , "Richard B. Rood" , "Brien Seeley" "Mark Seeley" > , "Oliver Morton" "Cheryl_H" > < "Richard' 'Somerville" , "Martin Heimann" , > "Don Kennedy" , "Heidi Cullen" "Shari Bell" > , "Rebecca Bratspies" , "Pete Myers" < , > "Michael Oppenheimer" , "Naomi Oreskes" , "Boslough" , "Ben > Santer" , "Tom Wigley" , [email protected] > Sent: Monday, May 31, 2010 2:44:22 PM > Subject: Re: response to Newsweek > > All > > Let me just reiterate that in my view the most powerful response to > Newsweek would be one that doesn't even address the attacks on the > integrity of scientists, but merely -- and forcefully-- points out how > wrong the article was about the scientific facts. > > Eric > > > > > Stephen H Schneider wrote: > >> Thanks Gabi, hi all. I agree that low climate sensitivity values hard >> to defend empirically and new work of my just-graduated PhD student, >> Carolyn Snyder, using her new compilation of spatially distributed >> time series of >500,000 years of "continuous" paleo data scaled to >> various forcings over time, finds just what Gabi said--very little >> likelihood of stretched left hand tail and smallish but still >> concenring possibility of fat right hand tail. Alot depends on how you >> define climate sensitivity--that is including as internal dynamics >> slow processes like ice sheet changes (moves CS distribution to bigger >> numbers typically to have so-called "full" climate sensitivity) or >> simply accounting for ice sheet changes as external radiative forcing >> varying over time. Can't say more until we get it through review at >> journals with embargoes--a behavior which I hate, but what can we do?? >> >> As to Newsweek, I already took Eric's suggestion to heart and emailed >> a reporter there I know well who amazingly enough is a specialist in >> environment and hasn't been sacked yet! I complained about falsely >> framed editorial about scientific credibility loss and asked if she >> could help us with an inside track to get a rebuttal. Will let you >> know when she responds. I won't paste in to this list what I said in >> private to the reporter, because I worry about our "private" emails >> being surreptitiously obtained and the usual forces of deception >> quoting bits out of context on their blog sites--a favorite past time >> for some of them. If anyone is interested email me privately. >> >> Cheers, Steve >> >> PS to Tom W.--I fully agree with your point about the 17% in the tails >> of the CS distribution, but isn't the number really a range: 5-17%, >> since "likely" in IPCC uncertainties guidance language last time had a >> table showing that the next category, "very likely" is >90%, so >> "likely" is 66-90% estimate--ergo the 5-17% range ("very unlikely" to >> "unlikely" are the agreed words for this range, not "cannot be >> excluded"). It is a trifle of language, primarily, but I wanted to >> clarify that there is consistent language for future use. >> >> >> Stephen H. Schneider >> Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for Interdisciplinary Environmental >> Studies, Professor, Department of Biology and >> Senior Fellow, Woods Institute for the Environment >> Mailing address: >> Yang & Yamazaki Environment & Energy Building - MC 4205 >> 473 Via Ortega >> Ph: 650 725 9978 >> F: 650 725 4387 >> Websites: climatechange.net >> patientfromhell.org >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Gabi Hegerl" >> To: "Tom Wigley" , [email protected] >> Cc: "Eric Steig" , "Mark B Boslough" >> , [email protected], "Thomas Crowley" >> , "Dr. Krishna AchutaRao" >> , "Myles Allen" , >> "Natalia Andronova" , "Tim C Atkinson" >> , "Rick Anthes" , >> "Caspar Ammann" , , "David C. >> Bader" , "Tim Barnett" >> , "Eric Barron" , "Graham' >> 'Bench" , "Pat Berge" >> , "George Boer" , "Celine J. W. >> Bonfils" , "James A.' 'Bono" >> , "James Boyle" , "Ray Bradley" >> , "Robin Bravender" >> , "Keith Briffa" , >> "Wolfgang Brueggemann" , "Lisa >> Butler" , "Ken Caldeira" >> , "Peter Caldwell" , >> "Dan Cayan" , "Peter U. Clark" >> , "Amy Clement" , >> "Nancy Cole" >, "William Collins" >> , "Tina Conrad" , "Curtis >> Covey" , "birte dar" , "Davies >> Trevor Prof" , "Jay Davis" >> , "Tomas Diaz De La Rubia" , >> "Andrew Dessler" , "Michael' >> 'Dettinger" , "Phil Duffy" >> , "Paul J.' 'Ehlenbach" >> , "Kerry Emanuel" , >> "James Estes" , "Veronika' 'Eyring" >> , "David Fahey" , >> "Chris Field" , "Peter >> Foukal" < >, "Melissa Free" >> , "Julio Friedmann" , >> "Bill Fulkerson" , "Inez Fung" , >> "Jeff Garberson" >, "PETER GENT" >> , "Nathan Gillett" , "peter >> gleckler" , "Bill Goldstein" >> , "Hal Graboske" , "Tom >> Guilderson" , "Leopold >> Haimberger" , "Alex Hall" >> , "James Hansen" >> , "harvey" , "Klaus >> Hasselmann" , "Susan Joy >> Hassol" < >, "Isaac Held" >> , "Bob Hirschfeld" , >> "Jeremy Hobbs" < , "Dr. Elisabeth >> A. Holland" , "Greg Holland" >> , "Brian Hoskins" , >> "mhughes" , "James Hurrell" >> , "Ken Jackson" , "c jakob" >> , "Gardar Johannesson" >> , "Philip D. Jones" , "Helen >> Kang" , "Thomas R Karl" >> , "David Karoly" , >> "Jeffrey Kiehl" , "Steve Klein" >> , "Knutti Reto" , >> "John Lanzante" , >> [email protected], "Ron Lehman" , "John lewis" >> , "Steven A. 'Lloyd (GSFC-610.2)[R S >> INFORMATION SYSTEMS INC]'" , "Jane Long" >> , "Janice Lough" >> , "mann" , [email protected], "Linda >> Mearns" , "carl mears" >> < >, "Jerry Meehl" , "Jerry Melillo" >> , "George Miller" >> , "Norman Miller" , "Art Mirin" >> , "John FB' 'Mitchell" >> >, "Phil Mote" >> , "Neville Nicholls" >> , "Gerald R. North" >> , "Astrid E.J. Ogilvie" >> , "Stephanie Ohshita" >> , "Tim Osborn" , "Stu' >> 'Ostro" >, "j palutikof" >> , "Joyce Penner" , >> "Thomas C Peterson" , "Tom Phillips" >> , "David Pierce" >> , [email protected], "V. Ramaswamy" >> , "Veerabhadran' 'Ramanathan" >> , "Sarah Raper" , "Phil >> Rasch" , "Kathryn Rauhut" >> , "Doug Rotman" , "Terry L. Root" >> , "Robert 'Sausen, DLR'" >> , "jsanter" , "John >> Schellnhuber" , "David Schimel" >> , "Michael Schlesinger" , >> "Gavin Schmidt" , >> "Christina L. Schomer" , "Lynda Seaver" >> , "Dian J. Seidel" , >> "Ted Sheppard" , "s sherwood" >> , "Adrian Simmons" , >> "socci anthony" , "brian soden" >> , "Susan Solomon" < , >> "Ken Sperber" , "Anne Stark" , >> "Thomas Stocker" , "Ronald J >> Stouffer" , [email protected], "Karl >> Taylor" , "claudia tebaldi" >> < , "Joao P' 'Teixeira" >> , "Simon Tett" , >> "Thomas A.' 'Tombrello" , "David Thompson" >> , "Lonnie Thompson" >> , "ELLEN THOMPSON" , "Peter' >> 'Thorne" , "Mike >> Wallace" , "Bud Ward" >> "David 'Warrilow (GA)'" >> , "Warren Washington" , >> "Andrew Weaver" , "Michael >> Wehner" , "Frank Wentz" >> "Penny' 'Whetton" , "Dean N. >> Williams" , "Gordon Yano" , >> "Francis W. Zwiers" , "Erik M' >> 'Conway" , "Sanjay Khanna" >> , "Graham Cogley" , >> "Jeffrey Kargel" < >, "W. Crawford Elliott" >> , "John Weyant" >> , "Anthony Janetos" , >> "Alison' 'Sowden" , "Vernon >> Squire" , "Eric Garen" >> "Peter Cross" >, "Charles >> Zeller" >, "Ian Murdock" , >> "Victoria A Arroyo" , >> "Rashida Leonard" , "Stephanie Fontenoy" "John Collee" "Sarah-jane Potts" >> , "Greg Dutton" >> "Richard B. Rood" , "Brien >> Seeley" , "Mark Seeley" >> , "Oliver Morton" >> , "Cheryl_H" >> , "Richard' 'Somerville" , >> "Martin Heimann" , >> "Don Kennedy" , "Heidi Cullen" >> < >, "Shari Bell" >> >, "Rebecca Bratspies" >> , "Pete Myers" , >> "Michael Oppenheimer" , "Naomi Oreskes" >> , "Boslough" , "Ben >> Santer" , "Stephen H Schneider" >> Sent: Monday, May 31, 2010 1:51:29 PM >> Subject: Re: response to Newsweek >> >> I agree with Tom, it is very important to point out that the >> uncertainties are very different at the upper and lower tail. The >> lower tail is quite well constrained. There are a large number of >> studies, from modelling, and from observed evidence from deep time >> through LGM through last mill through the 20th century that show that >> a low (eg lower than 1.5) climate sensitivity is very difficult to >> reconcile with the data. Evidence from so many sources is stronger >> than individual lines. there have been occasional papers claiming >> lower sensitivities, but those made errors that were clear to spot, >> and in some cases for example, led to the (known) climate sensitivity >> of models to be crassly underestimated when applied to climate model >> data. Reto (cc'ed) and I summed up the evidence in a review paper in >> nature geoscience in fall 2008, which also discusses some recent low >> estimates (attached). >> The IPCC AR4 estimate nor that paper was estimate was trying to >> formally combine different lines of evidence into stronger overall >> evidence - if that were done, the constraints would be quite a bit >> stronger, but it is not straightforward to do and we worried about >> remaining errors being difficult to estimate. what this says is that >> the present estimate could be considered quite conservative. >> >> Gabi >> >> Quoting Tom Wigley : >> >> >> >>> I agree. >>> >>> But let us not propagate the error in the Economist. Here is a para >>> from a report of mine. The reference cited is in Climatic Change if a >>> published source is required. >>> >>> ----- >>> >>> The uncertainty in the climate sensitivity has been specified in the >>> IPCC AR4. The best estimate value is ?T2x = 3.0oC, and the likely >>> (68% C.I.) range is 2.0 to 4.5oC. In other words, there is a 17% >>> chance that ?T2x is less than 2.0oC, and a 17% chance that it is >>> greater than 4.5oC. The uncertainty distribution is therefore skewed >>> with a longer ‘tail’ at high values than at low values. If one >>> assumes this distribution is lognormal, then it is easy to calculate >>> the 90% C.I. (see Wigley et al., 2009) – which comes to 1.5 to >>> 6.0oC. There is, therefore, if one accepts the IPCC likely range, a >>> 5% chance that the sensitivity is more than 6.0oC (or less than >>> 1.5oC). >>> >>> ----- >>> >>> Tom. >>> >>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> >>> Eric Steig wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Dear All, >>>> >>>> I think that a group of scientists in the U.S. really needs to >>>> write a good response to the egregious editorial in Newsweek. >>>> >>>> http://www.newsweek.com/2010/05/28/uncertain-science.html >>>> >>>> Both individual letters or a letter signed by dozens of scientists >>>> might be considered. It would be especially good if this did not >>>> come from people associated with RealClimate, which is too often >>>> the only widely-known counterpoint to these sorts of things. >>>> >>>> I would argue that the point of the letter would not be once again >>>> to defend scientists' integrity, important as that may be. >>>> >>>> Rather, the letter should focus on the key scientific point, which >>>> is correcting what is said in the Newsweek article about climate >>>> sensitivity. In effect, Newsweek says that our knowledge of >>>> climate sensitivity is 'no longer certain' and that we can >>>> therefore not justify cutting fossil fuel use on this basis (!). >>>> >>>> The point to make here -- at least in my view -- is that 1) the >>>> uncertainties were already clear in the IPCC report, and they have >>>> not changed and that 2) none of the recent political shenanigans >>>> have have changed our estimates of climate sensitivity. >>>> >>>> You might borrow from the excellent article in the Economist, which >>>> sums up the point this way: >>>> >>>> "...the sensitivity to a doubling of carbon dioxide of less than >>>> 1.5ºC ... has perhaps one chance in ten of being correct. But if >>>> the IPCC were underestimating things by a factor of five or so, >>>> that would still leave only a 50:50 chance of ...a desirable >>>> outcome. The fact that the uncertainties allow you to construct a >>>> relatively benign future does not allow you to ignore futures in >>>> which climate change is large, and in some of which it is very >>>> dangerous indeed." >>>> >>>> I hope someone will take the lead on doing this. Newsweek is in >>>> demise, but it is still very widely read and influential. >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> Eric Steig >>>> >>>> >> -- Gabriele Hegerl >> chair of climate system science >> School of GeoSciences >> University of Edinburgh >> http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/people/person.html?indv=1613 >> >> -- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in >> Scotland, with registration number SC005336. >> >> > > -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Eric J. Steig > Professor, Department of Earth and Space Sciences > Director, Quaternary Research Center > University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195 > tel: 206-685-3715 > faculty.washington.edu/steig | depts.washington.edu/isolab >

-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Eric J. Steig Professor, Department of Earth and Space Sciences Director, Quaternary Research Center University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195 tel: 206-685-3715 faculty.washington.edu/steig | depts.washington.edu/isolab From: Eric Steig To: Stephen H Schneider Cc: Gabi Hegerl; Mark B Boslough; [email protected]; Thomas Crowley; Dr. Krishna AchutaRao; Myles Allen; Natalia Andronova; Tim C Atkinson; Rick Anthes; Caspar Ammann; David C. Bader; Tim Barnett; Eric Barron; Graham" "Bench; Pat Berge; George Boer; Celine J. W. Bonfils; James A." "Bono; James Boyle; Ray Bradley; Robin Bravender; Keith Briffa; Wolfgang Brueggemann; Lisa Butler; Ken Caldeira; Peter Caldwell; Dan Cayan; Peter U. Clark; Amy Clement; Nancy Cole; William Collins; Tina Conrad; Curtis Covey; birte dar; Davies Trevor Prof; Jay Davis; Tomas Diaz De La Rubia; Andrew Dessler; Michael" "Dettinger; Phil Duffy; Paul J." "Ehlenbach; Kerry Emanuel; James Estes; Veronika" "Eyring; David Fahey; Chris Field; Peter Foukal; Melissa Free; Julio Friedmann; Bill Fulkerson; Inez Fung; Jeff Garberson; PETER GENT; Nathan Gillett; peter gleckler; Bill Goldstein; Hal Graboske; Tom Guilderson; Leopold Haimberger; Alex Hall; James Hansen; harvey; Klaus Hasselmann; Susan Joy Hassol; Isaac Held; Bob Hirschfeld; Jeremy Hobbs; Dr. Elisabeth A. Holland; Greg Holland; Brian Hoskins; mhughes; James Hurrell; Ken Jackson; c jakob; Gardar Johannesson; Philip D. Jones; Helen Kang; Thomas R Karl; David Karoly; Jeffrey Kiehl; Steve Klein; Knutti Reto; John Lanzante; [email protected]; Ron Lehman; John lewis; Steven A. "Lloyd (GSFC-610.2)[R S INFORMATION SYSTEMS INC]"; Jane Long; Janice Lough; mann; [email protected]; Linda Mearns; carl mears; Jerry Meehl; Jerry Melillo; George Miller; Norman Miller; Art Mirin; John FB" "Mitchell; Phil Mote; Neville Nicholls; Gerald R. North; Astrid E.J. Ogilvie; Stephanie Ohshita; Tim Osborn; Stu" "Ostro; j palutikof; Joyce Penner; Thomas C Peterson; Tom Phillips; David Pierce; [email protected]; V. Ramaswamy; Veerabhadran" "Ramanathan; Sarah Raper; Phil Rasch; Kathryn Rauhut; Doug Rotman; Terry L. Root; Robert "Sausen, DLR"; jsanter; John Schellnhuber; David Schimel; Michael Schlesinger; Gavin Schmidt; Christina L. Schomer; Lynda Seaver; Dian J. Seidel; Ted Sheppard; s sherwood; Adrian Simmons; socci anthony; brian soden; Susan Solomon; Ken Sperber; Anne Stark; Thomas Stocker; Ronald J Stouffer; [email protected]; Karl Taylor; claudia tebaldi; Joao P" "Teixeira; Simon Tett; Thomas A." "Tombrello; David Thompson; Lonnie Thompson; ELLEN THOMPSON; Peter" "Thorne; Mike Wallace; Bud Ward; David "Warrilow (GA)"; Warren Washington; Andrew Weaver; Michael Wehner; Frank Wentz; Penny" "Whetton; Dean N. Williams; Gordon Yano; Francis W. Zwiers; Erik M" "Conway; Sanjay Khanna; Graham Cogley; Jeffrey Kargel; W. Crawford Elliott; John Weyant; Anthony Janetos; Alison" "Sowden; Vernon Squire; Eric Garen; Peter Cross; Charles Zeller; Ian Murdock; Victoria A Arroyo; Rashida Leonard; Stephanie Fontenoy; John Collee; Sarah-jane Potts; Greg Dutton; ; Richard B. Rood; Brien Seeley; Mark Seeley; Oliver Morton; ; ; Cheryl H; Richard" "Somerville; Martin Heimann; Don Kennedy; Heidi Cullen; Shari Bell; Rebecca Bratspies; Pete Myers; Michael Oppenheimer; Naomi Oreskes; Boslough; Ben Santer; Tom Wigley; [email protected] Subject: Re: response to Newsweek Date: Monday, May 31, 2010 8:07:32 PM

Steve,

Eric

Stephen H Schneider wrote: > Though I agree with that Eric, and we must always point out the best science as you rightly say, there is much social science literature that shows this will not by itself do much at all in the "out there" political debate. "Truth" wins in the end, but sometimes takes a generation or two to percolate into public consciousness and political action. I think it is a fact of life we had better not forget that political institutions and the mainstream media--broken institutions that they may be--are much more interested in "who can be trusted" than "what is the best science"--to be empirical, that framing of who to trust is ~80% of the questions I get from the media, congressional staff, etc, and I assure you it is hard work in these interviews for me to get them to re-frame their thinking to what is the science, and away from are the scientists trustworthy or any different in credibility from the "other side". > > Don't let us be naive about that--it is perception of the credibility of various claimants of "reality" that they focus on, not complex details dealing with the confidence we have in various scientific conclusions- -our "day job" at NAS, IPCC etc. Of course we should explain the science right and insist they not neglect it, but if we ignore the credibility perception issue altogether we will continue to fail to get a fair hearing and be mis-framed by those with no hesitation to spin for special interests or deep ideology-- and the media is very likely to continue to give them equal status at the table with us no matter how much we talk about peer reviewed science. Wish it weren't so, but in my too-long experience that is the bulk of it in the world of advocacy and spin out there, dislike it as many of us do, we have to know what is the process that frames the context of our work when it hits the public arena and make some adjustments in our accustomed style if we wish to have a > n impact. Lovely thing, this "real world"....but if we don't understand it it is hard to get effective attention in order to improve it. > > Cheers, Steve > > > Stephen H. Schneider > Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies, > Professor, Department of Biology and > Senior Fellow, Woods Institute for the Environment > Mailing address: > Yang & Yamazaki Environment & Energy Building - MC 4205 > 473 Via Ortega > Ph: 650 725 9978 > F: 650 725 4387 > Websites: climatechange.net > patientfromhell.org > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eric Steig" > To: "Stephen H Schneider" > Cc: "Gabi Hegerl" , "Mark B Boslough" , [email protected], "Thomas Crowley" > , "Dr. Krishna AchutaRao" , "Myles Allen" , > "Natalia Andronova" , "Tim C Atkinson" , "Rick Anthes" , > "Caspar Ammann" , "David C. Bader" , "Tim Barnett" > , "Eric Barron" , "Graham' 'Bench" , "Pat Berge" > , "George Boer" , "Celine J. W. Bonfils" , "James A.' 'Bono" > , "James Boyle" , "Ray Bradley" , "Robin Bravender" > >, "Keith Briffa" , "Wolfgang Brueggemann" , "Lisa > Butler" , "Ken Caldeira" , "Peter Caldwell" , "Dan > Cayan" , "Peter U. Clark" , "Amy Clement" , "Nancy > Cole" , "William Collins" , "Tina Conrad" , "Curtis Covey" > , "birte dar" , "Davies Trevor Prof" , "Jay Davis" > "Tomas Diaz De La Rubia" , "Andrew Dessler" , "Michael' > 'Dettinger" , "Phil Duffy" < >, "Paul J.' 'Ehlenbach" > , "Kerry Emanuel" , "James Estes" , "Veronika' 'Eyring" > , "David Fahey" , "Chris Field" , "Peter > Foukal" , "Melissa Free" , "Julio Friedmann" , "Bill > Fulkerson" , "Inez Fung" , "Jeff Garberson" , "PETER GENT" > , "Nathan Gillett" , "peter gleckler" , "Bill Goldstein" > , "Hal Graboske" , "Tom Guilderson" , "Leopold > Haimberger" , "Alex Hall" , "James Hansen" > , "harvey" , "Klaus Hasselmann" , "Susan Joy > Hassol" , "Isaac Held" , "Bob Hirschfeld" , > "Jeremy Hobbs" < "Dr. Elisabeth A. Holland" , "Greg Holland" > , "Brian Hoskins" , "mhughes" , "James Hurrell" > , "Ken Jackson" , "c jakob" , "Gardar Johannesson" > , "Philip D. Jones" , "Helen Kang" , "Thomas R Karl" > , "David Karoly" , "Jeffrey Kiehl" , "Steve Klein" > , "Knutti Reto" , "John Lanzante" , > [email protected], "Ron Lehman" , "John lewis" , "Steven A. 'Lloyd (GSFC-610.2)[R S > INFORMATION SYSTEMS INC]'" , "Jane Long" "Janice Lough" > , "mann" , [email protected], "Linda Mearns" , "carl mears" > "Jerry Meehl" , "Jerry Melillo" , "George Miller" > , "Norman Miller" , "Art Mirin" , "John FB' 'Mitchell" > >, "Phil Mote" , "Neville Nicholls" > , "Gerald R. North" , "Astrid E.J. Ogilvie" > , "Stephanie Ohshita" , "Tim Osborn" , "Stu' > 'Ostro" , "j palutikof" , "Joyce Penner" , > "Thomas C Peterson" , "Tom Phillips" , "David Pierce" > , [email protected], "V. Ramaswamy" , "Veerabhadran' 'Ramanathan" > , "Sarah Raper" , "Phil Rasch" , "Kathryn Rauhut" > , "Doug Rotman" , "Terry L. Root" , "Robert 'Sausen, DLR'" > , "jsanter" < , "John Schellnhuber" , "David Schimel" > , "Michael Schlesinger" , "Gavin Schmidt" , > "Christina L. Schomer" , "Lynda Seaver" , "Dian J. Seidel" , > "Ted Sheppard" , "s sherwood" , "Adrian Simmons" , > "socci anthony" , "brian soden" , "Susan Solomon" < >, > "Ken Sperber" , "Anne Stark" , "Thomas Stocker" , "Ronald J > Stouffer" , [email protected], "Karl Taylor" , "claudia tebaldi" > , "Joao P' 'Teixeira" , "Simon Tett" , > "Thomas A.' 'Tombrello" , "David Thompson" , "Lonnie Thompson" > , "ELLEN THOMPSON" , "Peter' 'Thorne" , "Mike > Wallace" , "Bud Ward" , "David 'Warrilow (GA)'" > , "Warren Washington" , "Andrew Weaver" , "Michael > Wehner" , "Frank Wentz" < , "Penny' 'Whetton" , "Dean N. > Williams" , "Gordon Yano" , "Francis W. Zwiers" , "Erik M' > 'Conway" , "Sanjay Khanna" >, "Graham Cogley" , > "Jeffrey Kargel" >, "W. Crawford Elliott" , "John Weyant" > , "Anthony Janetos" , "Alison' 'Sowden" , "Vernon > Squire" , "Eric Garen" , "Peter Cross" < "Charles > Zeller" "Ian Murdock" , "Victoria A Arroyo" , > "Rashida Leonard" , "Stephanie Fontenoy" , "John Collee" > , "Sarah-jane Potts" >, "Greg Dutton" , > , "Richard B. Rood" , "Brien Seeley" , "Mark Seeley" > , "Oliver Morton" , "Cheryl_H" > , "Richard' 'Somerville" , "Martin Heimann" , > "Don Kennedy" , "Heidi Cullen" >, "Shari Bell" > >, "Rebecca Bratspies" , "Pete Myers" , > "Michael Oppenheimer" , "Naomi Oreskes" , "Boslough" , "Ben > Santer" , "Tom Wigley" , [email protected] > Sent: Monday, May 31, 2010 2:44:22 PM > Subject: Re: response to Newsweek > > All > > Let me just reiterate that in my view the most powerful response to > Newsweek would be one that doesn't even address the attacks on the > integrity of scientists, but merely -- and forcefully-- points out how > wrong the article was about the scientific facts. > > Eric > > > > > Stephen H Schneider wrote: > >> Thanks Gabi, hi all. I agree that low climate sensitivity values hard >> to defend empirically and new work of my just-graduated PhD student, >> Carolyn Snyder, using her new compilation of spatially distributed >> time series of >500,000 years of "continuous" paleo data scaled to >> various forcings over time, finds just what Gabi said--very little >> likelihood of stretched left hand tail and smallish but still >> concenring possibility of fat right hand tail. Alot depends on how you >> define climate sensitivity--that is including as internal dynamics >> slow processes like ice sheet changes (moves CS distribution to bigger >> numbers typically to have so-called "full" climate sensitivity) or >> simply accounting for ice sheet changes as external radiative forcing >> varying over time. Can't say more until we get it through review at >> journals with embargoes--a behavior which I hate, but what can we do?? >> >> As to Newsweek, I already took Eric's suggestion to heart and emailed >> a reporter there I know well who amazingly enough is a specialist in >> environment and hasn't been sacked yet! I complained about falsely >> framed editorial about scientific credibility loss and asked if she >> could help us with an inside track to get a rebuttal. Will let you >> know when she responds. I won't paste in to this list what I said in >> private to the reporter, because I worry about our "private" emails >> being surreptitiously obtained and the usual forces of deception >> quoting bits out of context on their blog sites--a favorite past time >> for some of them. If anyone is interested email me privately. >> >> Cheers, Steve >> >> PS to Tom W.--I fully agree with your point about the 17% in the tails >> of the CS distribution, but isn't the number really a range: 5-17%, >> since "likely" in IPCC uncertainties guidance language last time had a >> table showing that the next category, "very likely" is >90%, so >> "likely" is 66-90% estimate--ergo the 5-17% range ("very unlikely" to >> "unlikely" are the agreed words for this range, not "cannot be >> excluded"). It is a trifle of language, primarily, but I wanted to >> clarify that there is consistent language for future use. >> >> >> Stephen H. Schneider >> Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for Interdisciplinary Environmental >> Studies, Professor, Department of Biology and >> Senior Fellow, Woods Institute for the Environment >> Mailing address: >> Yang & Yamazaki Environment & Energy Building - MC 4205 >> 473 Via Ortega >> Ph: 650 725 9978 >> F: 650 725 4387 >> Websites: climatechange.net >> patientfromhell.org >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Gabi Hegerl" >> To: "Tom Wigley" , [email protected] >> Cc: "Eric Steig" , "Mark B Boslough" >> , [email protected], "Thomas Crowley" >> , "Dr. Krishna AchutaRao" >> , "Myles Allen" , >> "Natalia Andronova" , "Tim C Atkinson" >> , "Rick Anthes" , >> "Caspar Ammann" , , "David C. >> Bader" , "Tim Barnett" >> , "Eric Barron" , "Graham' >> 'Bench" , "Pat Berge" >> , "George Boer" , "Celine J. W. >> Bonfils" , "James A.' 'Bono" >> , "James Boyle" , "Ray Bradley" >> , "Robin Bravender" >> , "Keith Briffa" , >> "Wolfgang Brueggemann" , "Lisa >> Butler" , "Ken Caldeira" >> , "Peter Caldwell" , >> "Dan Cayan" , "Peter U. Clark" >> , "Amy Clement" , >> "Nancy Cole" >, "William Collins" >> , "Tina Conrad" , "Curtis >> Covey" , "birte dar" , "Davies >> Trevor Prof" , "Jay Davis" >> >, "Tomas Diaz De La Rubia" , >> "Andrew Dessler" , "Michael' >> 'Dettinger" , "Phil Duffy" >> , "Paul J.' 'Ehlenbach" >> , "Kerry Emanuel" , >> "James Estes" , "Veronika' 'Eyring" >> , "David Fahey" , >> "Chris Field" , "Peter >> Foukal" < "Melissa Free" >> , "Julio Friedmann" , >> "Bill Fulkerson" , "Inez Fung" , >> "Jeff Garberson" >, "PETER GENT" >> , "Nathan Gillett" , "peter >> gleckler" , "Bill Goldstein" >> , "Hal Graboske" , "Tom >> Guilderson" , "Leopold >> Haimberger" , "Alex Hall" >> , "James Hansen" >> , "harvey" , "Klaus >> Hasselmann" , "Susan Joy >> Hassol" >, "Isaac Held" >> , "Bob Hirschfeld" , >> "Jeremy Hobbs" , "Dr. Elisabeth >> A. Holland" , "Greg Holland" >> , "Brian Hoskins" , >> "mhughes" , "James Hurrell" >> , "Ken Jackson" , "c jakob" >> , "Gardar Johannesson" >> , "Philip D. Jones" , "Helen >> Kang" , "Thomas R Karl" >> , "David Karoly" , >> "Jeffrey Kiehl" , "Steve Klein" >> , "Knutti Reto" , >> "John Lanzante" , >> [email protected], "Ron Lehman" , "John lewis" >> , "Steven A. 'Lloyd (GSFC-610.2)[R S >> INFORMATION SYSTEMS INC]'" , "Jane Long" >> "Janice Lough" >> , "mann" , [email protected], "Linda >> Mearns" , "carl mears" >> , "Jerry Meehl" , "Jerry Melillo" >> , "George Miller" >> , "Norman Miller" , "Art Mirin" >> , "John FB' 'Mitchell" >> , "Phil Mote" >> , "Neville Nicholls" >> , "Gerald R. North" >> , "Astrid E.J. Ogilvie" >> , "Stephanie Ohshita" >> , "Tim Osborn" , "Stu' >> 'Ostro" < , "j palutikof" >> , "Joyce Penner" , >> "Thomas C Peterson" , "Tom Phillips" >> , "David Pierce" >> , [email protected], "V. Ramaswamy" >> , "Veerabhadran' 'Ramanathan" >> , "Sarah Raper" , "Phil >> Rasch" , "Kathryn Rauhut" >> , "Doug Rotman" , "Terry L. Root" >> , "Robert 'Sausen, DLR'" >> , "jsanter" "John >> Schellnhuber" , "David Schimel" >> , "Michael Schlesinger" , >> "Gavin Schmidt" , >> "Christina L. Schomer" , "Lynda Seaver" >> , "Dian J. Seidel" , >> "Ted Sheppard" , "s sherwood" >> , "Adrian Simmons" , >> "socci anthony" , "brian soden" >> , "Susan Solomon" < , >> "Ken Sperber" , "Anne Stark" , >> "Thomas Stocker" , "Ronald J >> Stouffer" , [email protected], "Karl >> Taylor" , "claudia tebaldi" >> , "Joao P' 'Teixeira" >> , "Simon Tett" , >> "Thomas A.' 'Tombrello" , "David Thompson" >> , "Lonnie Thompson" >> , "ELLEN THOMPSON" , "Peter' >> 'Thorne" , "Mike >> Wallace" , "Bud Ward" >> , "David 'Warrilow (GA)'" >> , "Warren Washington" , >> "Andrew Weaver" , "Michael >> Wehner" , "Frank Wentz" >> "Penny' 'Whetton" , "Dean N. >> Williams" , "Gordon Yano" , >> "Francis W. Zwiers" , "Erik M' >> 'Conway" , "Sanjay Khanna" >> , "Graham Cogley" , >> "Jeffrey Kargel" , "W. Crawford Elliott" >> , "John Weyant" >> , "Anthony Janetos" , >> "Alison' 'Sowden" , "Vernon >> Squire" , "Eric Garen" >> , "Peter Cross" , "Charles >> Zeller" , "Ian Murdock" >> "Victoria A Arroyo" , >> "Rashida Leonard" , "Stephanie Fontenoy" "John Collee" "Sarah-jane Potts" , "Greg Dutton" >> "Richard B. Rood" , "Brien >> Seeley" , "Mark Seeley" >> , "Oliver Morton" >> , "Cheryl_H" >> < "Richard' 'Somerville" , >> "Martin Heimann" , >> "Don Kennedy" , "Heidi Cullen" >> , "Shari Bell" >> , "Rebecca Bratspies" >> , "Pete Myers" , >> "Michael Oppenheimer" , "Naomi Oreskes" >> , "Boslough" , "Ben >> Santer" , "Stephen H Schneider" >> Sent: Monday, May 31, 2010 1:51:29 PM >> Subject: Re: response to Newsweek >> >> I agree with Tom, it is very important to point out that the >> uncertainties are very different at the upper and lower tail. The >> lower tail is quite well constrained. There are a large number of >> studies, from modelling, and from observed evidence from deep time >> through LGM through last mill through the 20th century that show that >> a low (eg lower than 1.5) climate sensitivity is very difficult to >> reconcile with the data. Evidence from so many sources is stronger >> than individual lines. there have been occasional papers claiming >> lower sensitivities, but those made errors that were clear to spot, >> and in some cases for example, led to the (known) climate sensitivity >> of models to be crassly underestimated when applied to climate model >> data. Reto (cc'ed) and I summed up the evidence in a review paper in >> nature geoscience in fall 2008, which also discusses some recent low >> estimates (attached). >> The IPCC AR4 estimate nor that paper was estimate was trying to >> formally combine different lines of evidence into stronger overall >> evidence - if that were done, the constraints would be quite a bit >> stronger, but it is not straightforward to do and we worried about >> remaining errors being difficult to estimate. what this says is that >> the present estimate could be considered quite conservative. >> >> Gabi >> >> Quoting Tom Wigley : >> >> >> >>> I agree. >>> >>> But let us not propagate the error in the Economist. Here is a para >>> from a report of mine. The reference cited is in Climatic Change if a >>> published source is required. >>> >>> ----- >>> >>> The uncertainty in the climate sensitivity has been specified in the >>> IPCC AR4. The best estimate value is ?T2x = 3.0oC, and the likely >>> (68% C.I.) range is 2.0 to 4.5oC. In other words, there is a 17% >>> chance that ?T2x is less than 2.0oC, and a 17% chance that it is >>> greater than 4.5oC. The uncertainty distribution is therefore skewed >>> with a longer ‘tail’ at high values than at low values. If one >>> assumes this distribution is lognormal, then it is easy to calculate >>> the 90% C.I. (see Wigley et al., 2009) – which comes to 1.5 to >>> 6.0oC. There is, therefore, if one accepts the IPCC likely range, a >>> 5% chance that the sensitivity is more than 6.0oC (or less than >>> 1.5oC). >>> >>> ----- >>> >>> Tom. >>> >>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> >>> Eric Steig wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Dear All, >>>> >>>> I think that a group of scientists in the U.S. really needs to >>>> write a good response to the egregious editorial in Newsweek. >>>> >>>> http://www.newsweek.com/2010/05/28/uncertain-science.html >>>> >>>> Both individual letters or a letter signed by dozens of scientists >>>> might be considered. It would be especially good if this did not >>>> come from people associated with RealClimate, which is too often >>>> the only widely-known counterpoint to these sorts of things. >>>> >>>> I would argue that the point of the letter would not be once again >>>> to defend scientists' integrity, important as that may be. >>>> >>>> Rather, the letter should focus on the key scientific point, which >>>> is correcting what is said in the Newsweek article about climate >>>> sensitivity. In effect, Newsweek says that our knowledge of >>>> climate sensitivity is 'no longer certain' and that we can >>>> therefore not justify cutting fossil fuel use on this basis (!). >>>> >>>> The point to make here -- at least in my view -- is that 1) the >>>> uncertainties were already clear in the IPCC report, and they have >>>> not changed and that 2) none of the recent political shenanigans >>>> have have changed our estimates of climate sensitivity. >>>> >>>> You might borrow from the excellent article in the Economist, which >>>> sums up the point this way: >>>> >>>> "...the sensitivity to a doubling of carbon dioxide of less than >>>> 1.5ºC ... has perhaps one chance in ten of being correct. But if >>>> the IPCC were underestimating things by a factor of five or so, >>>> that would still leave only a 50:50 chance of ...a desirable >>>> outcome. The fact that the uncertainties allow you to construct a >>>> relatively benign future does not allow you to ignore futures in >>>> which climate change is large, and in some of which it is very >>>> dangerous indeed." >>>> >>>> I hope someone will take the lead on doing this. Newsweek is in >>>> demise, but it is still very widely read and influential. >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> Eric Steig >>>> >>>> >> -- Gabriele Hegerl >> chair of climate system science >> School of GeoSciences >> University of Edinburgh >> http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/people/person.html?indv=1613 >> >> -- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in >> Scotland, with registration number SC005336. >> >> > > -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Eric J. Steig > Professor, Department of Earth and Space Sciences > Director, Quaternary Research Center > University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195 > tel: 206-685-3715 > faculty.washington.edu/steig | depts.washington.edu/isolab >

Andy,

I'm just starting to look at the reviewers comments, and will plan on talking to you next week about where to go with the paper. I know you've thought a lot more about the issue of these regressions of q vs. T than I have, but depending on what we decide to do, we may want to cite these recent papers by Dan Murphy and Piers Forster -- they were essentially responses to the Spencer and Braswell and the Lindzen and Choi papers.

Basically, they both support the view that the types of regressions we've done are valid, but I need to try and understand the details a bit more to see if they are really relevant for our paper. On first look, I think the Murphy and Forster paper is more relevant than the Murphy one, but they both might be relevant.

Talk to you next week.

Sean

------Original Message ------Subject:file Date:Tue, 11 May 2010 16:37:39 -0600 From:Daniel.M.Murphy To:[email protected] From: Gerald North To: Andrew Dessler Subject: Fwd: Latest from Curry Date: Sunday, April 25, 2010 12:41:30 PM

Yeah, I sent this below (before your message). And, of course, he answered it, but I am done.

Something about this reminds me of a divorce I had once.

Jerry

Begin forwarded message:

From: Gerald North Date: April 25, 2010 11:16:08 AM CDT To: "Robert Bradley" < Subject: Re: Latest from Curry

Dear Rob,

Until recently, our relationship has been pedigogical. You asked me questions over the years and I tried to answer them as best I could. I have enjoyed that because it caused me to learn as I taught.

We are no longer in that mode. You are using me to advance a political agenda. I have asked you not to post these private communications, but you persist.

This has come to an end. I am sorry, but it must be.

Gerald North

On Apr 25, 2010, at 11:10 AM, Robert Bradley wrote:

Dear Jerry:

I have made the decision to post our controversy so you and Andy will every reason to explain yourselves in this very public, contentious public policy debate. http://www.masterresource.org/2010/04/gerald-north-the-non- alarmist-alarmist/

And remember:

1) both of you are public servants of the State of Texas as full time paid employees of a state university, and

2) you are on record as challenging the State of Texas on the state's petition against EPA's endangerment finding. I believe this post (and the other related ones at MasterResource) are relevant in this regard.

I am afraid you are 'in denial' under the perverse incentive (grant $$$), group think ('tribalism' as Judith Curry would put it), and mind set (Malthusianism) of most of your profession.

I thought that if you would take a month or two to step back and really think about what you believe, there was a chance you would 'own up' to your private beliefs and how they diverge from the IPCC--just like how your beliefs have diverged from the mini-alarms that big names in your profession have championed (your Chronicle letter-to-the- editor was quite important and even courageous, in retrospect). Judging from the last emails from you to me, I was wrong.

I was also naive to think you would take a closer look at Climategate a la Judith Curry. "These are all her opinions and she has a right to hold and exhibit them" is a cop out when you as a 'middle of the roader' really have an obligation to speak truth to power. She has courage and you do not. She and all of us deserve better from you. This cop-out is what you have told me about James Hansen as a duck (I can pull out those emails if you would like). Is Al Gore or John Holdren excused in this way too? Can anyone hold any belief as if there was not a 'balance of evidence' in the whole climate debate?

Shoot back. If I am wrong, I am wrong. But I think there needs to be a lot of explaining on what the heck you believe on models, sensitivity, fudge factors, and the rest of it given your (private) history.

The ball is in your court. And there is also time to come clean with your beliefs and not hide behind the IPCC, Dr. Dessler, or anyone else. You are your own man and not like a young scientist who cannot professionally or financially afford to buck the establishment on the quite unsettled science of climate change and politically-forced scientific 'consensus'.

- Rob

From: Gerald North [mailto: On Behalf Of Gerald North Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 10:26 AM To: Robert Bradley Subject: Re: Latest from Curry 2.00 is the value for no cloud feedback. I do not know what cloud feedback is. No one else knows either. But the best tool we have to estimate this is the GCM. They are unanimous. There is the possibility of using earth radiation budget data (a la Lindzen, Murphy et al., and others who all draw different conclusions from each other), but I think it is much less certain than the GCM, because of the short record and many other pitfalls. People should keep looking at this but understand the risk. I suspect that my estimates with Wu are actually better than these at the moment.

I guess I am confused about "litmus test". Jerry

On Apr 25, 2010, at 10:07 AM, Robert Bradley wrote:

Jerry: you have been at 2C for as long as I have known you, up until the lunch in January where you said you were 2C with a +/- .25C.

Why have that litmus test?

From: Gerald North [mailto: On Behalf Of Gerald North Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 9:48 AM To: Robert Bradley Subject: Re: Latest from Curry

Once again, you seem to think my old (1998) favorite value for doubling CO2 is 2.00 deg C is my last word on the subject and that I am afraid to say so publicly. It does seem to be the value one would obtain if there were no cloud feedbacks. I am attaching two papers written by Qigang Wu and myself. Qigang was one of my best PhD students (PhD in 2000).

The first, published in 2003 says:

"The data are consistent with models whose sensitivity to CO2 doubling is around 2.7C. The 95% confidence interval for this estimate is (2.3C, 3.1C)". From: on behalf of Andrew Dessler To: Gerald North Subject: Re: my latest to Bradley Date: Sunday, April 25, 2010 12:10:13 PM

@#$%^%^%$!!!!! stop e-mailing this guy. don't read his e-mails. forget about him. you will not win. you will not tie. you will lose.

On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 9:50 AM, Gerald North wrote: > Is this habit forming? > Jerry > > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Gerald North > Date: April 25, 2010 9:47:31 AM CDT > To: "Robert Bradley" < > Subject: Re: Latest from Curry > Once again, you seem to think my old (1998) favorite value for doubling CO2 > is 2.00 deg C is my last word on the subject and that I am afraid to say so > publicly. It does seem to be the value one would obtain if there were no > cloud feedbacks. I am attaching two papers written by Qigang Wu and myself. > Qigang was one of my best PhD students (PhD in 2000). > > The first, published in 2003 says: > "The data are consistent with models whose sensitivity to CO2 doubling > is around 2.7C. The 95% confidence interval for this > estimate is (2.3C, 3.1C)". > > The second paper with Qigang Wu was published in 2008 states: > "The observed seasonal cycle is consistent > with models whose sensitivity to CO2 doubling is around > 3.1C. The 95% confidence interval for this estimate is > (1.8C, 4.3C)". > > These results are entirely consistent with the IPCC average and range. > Neither study is wholly convincing, but either is perhaps more convincing > than the EBM result of yesteryear. But the studies attempt to compare GCMs > with one another using heretofore (obscure but) little-used statistics which > can be compared to the actual data generated by the models and this in turn > compared to the observations. This has been a theme of my work especially > with Qigang Wu. > You seem to be trying to pit me against the mainstream of climate > researchers and these two studies show that there are many consistency > checks that place me right among them. Yes, I am a middle of the road guy. > So are they. > I ask that you not post any of my private emails to you on your blog. Too > much is taken out of context. > Jerry > > > > > > On Apr 25, 2010, at 7:53 AM, Robert Bradley wrote: > > > We are talking past each other. You are not comfortable dealing with > Climategate and continue to insist that you and the IPCC are in lockstep > despite your 1/3 lower sensitivity estimate--an estimate that puts the A&M > litmus test in trouble. > > I am going to go ahead and post next week at MasterResource on all this and > hope that you--or Dessler--respond in whatever way you want. Have Dessler do > it--he is a blogger unlike you and has very strong opinions. > > - Rob > ______> From: Gerald North [mailto: On Behalf Of Gerald North > Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 9:55 PM > To: Robert Bradley > Subject: Re: Latest from Curry > > These are all her opinions and she has a right to hold and exhibit them. But > what are her positions on the science: sensitivity, anthropogenic component, > greenhouse effect, feedbacks. I think they are mainstream like mine and I > think she is irritated by the distraction, some of cause of which does fall > upon the scientists for their poor handling of the whole affair. She is > working hard to restore confidence in the science. > But what does she think the science says? > Jerry > On Apr 24, 2010, at 8:18 PM, Robert Bradley wrote: > > > http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2010/04/23/an-inconvenient-provocateur/ > > > Among many other things she says: > > Sloppy record keeping, cherry picking of data, and inadequate statistical > methods do not constitute scientific misconduct, but neither do they inspire > confidence in the research product. Further, the “bad apple” issue is still > out there, but this is something that is impossible to assess objectively. > And the behavior of these scientists (sloppy record keeping, dismissal of > skeptical critiques, and lack of transparency) has slowed down scientific > progress in assessing and improving these very important data sets. > Therefore I have been proposing that we move away from the focus on > individual behavior, and shifting focus to issues related to the IPCC > assessment process, addressing issues related the availability of data and > transparency of the methods, and to improving the temperature data and > proxies. Once these issues are addressed, the “bad apple” issue becomes > mostly moot. > > IPCC Process: > > > Corruptions to the IPCC process that I have seen discussed include: > • lead/contributing authors assessing their own work – (e.g. von Storch > criticism in 2005), in some cases resulting in an overemphasis on their own > papers written by themselves and their collaborators; > • tailoring graphics and not adequately describing uncertainties > ostensibly to simplify and not to “dilute the message” that IPCC wanted to > send; > • violations of publication (in press) deadlines for inclusions of papers > in the IPCC report; > • inadequacies in the review process whereby lead/contributing authors > don’t respond fairly to adverse criticism; this inadequacy arises in part to > the authors themselves having ultimate authority and in part to cursory > performance by the Review Editors; > • evasiveness and unresponsiveness by the IPCC regarding efforts to > investigate alleged violations occurring in the review process; > • IPCC Review Editors and authors using the IPCC to avoid accountability > under national FOI legislation. > > Pretty serious stuff if you have time to focus on it.... > > - Rob > > > > Robert L. Bradley Jr. > CEO & Founder, Institute for Energy Research > 6219 Olympia Drive > Houston, Texas 77057–3527 > Phone: 713-974-1918 > Fax: 713-974-1993 > > IER Website: www.energyrealism.org > Political Capitalism website: www.politicalcapitalism.org > Energy Blog: www.MasterResource.org > > > > > >

-- Andrew Dessler Professor of Atmospheric Sciences Texas A&M University http://atmo.tamu.edu/profile/ADessler From: Robert Bradley To: "Gerald North" Cc: "Andrew Dessler" Subject: RE: Latest from Curry Date: Sunday, April 25, 2010 11:34:43 AM

Climate science is 'nonpolitical'? What world do you live in?

Would you like me to pull out the emails with your political statements in them? Was your Chronicle op-ed with Dessler nonpolitical?

Yes, I knew this could be the end. But this is a small price to pay to try to get toward the truth as you experts state it.

And if you would 'come clean' with a full response, you might actually thank me for all this on down the road. I have emails from you thanking me for my 'public policy' push on the science--want me to pull those out too?

You have stated that you do not write emails that you do not want to be public. What are you hiding other than what you have said in the past?

Is the 'private' Jerry North just an extension of Climategate--emails that reveal what is really going on behind the curtain? What if we could see all of the emails of the climate alarmists and the closet non-alarmists? Wow!

What do you really believe, Jerry, to inform the policy debate? Sounds like you will just ignore this and hope it goes away..... That is a pretty bad way to deal with it--and I gave you a golden opportunity to come clean in a much better manner than what is now the case. You are a student of the philosophy and history of science. I have to believe you care about how a philosopher or historian of science will view your legacy.

Why not explain yourself? It is not the end of the world to own up to 2C, for gosh sakes..... And the problems of models..... And the obvious lessons of Climategate.... This is not ultra-skepticism but good middle-of-the-road stuff.

- Rob

From: Gerald North [mailto: On Behalf Of Gerald North Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 11:16 AM To: Robert Bradley Subject: Re: Latest from Curry

Dear Rob,

Until recently, our relationship has been pedigogical. You asked me questions over the years and I tried to answer them as best I could. I have enjoyed that because it caused me to learn as I taught. We are no longer in that mode. You are using me to advance a political agenda. I have asked you not to post these private communications, but you persist.

This has come to an end. I am sorry, but it must be.

Gerald North

On Apr 25, 2010, at 11:10 AM, Robert Bradley wrote:

Dear Jerry:

And remember:

1) both of you are public servants of the State of Texas as full time paid employees of a state university, and

I am afraid you are 'in denial' under the perverse incentive (grant $$$), group think ('tribalism' as Judith Curry would put it), and mind set (Malthusianism) of most of your profession.

I thought that if you would take a month or two to step back and really think about what you believe, there was a chance you would 'own up' to your private beliefs and how they diverge from the IPCC--just like how your beliefs have diverged from the mini-alarms that big names in your profession have championed (your Chronicle letter-to-the-editor was quite important and even courageous, in retrospect). Judging from the last emails from you to me, I was wrong.

- Rob

From: Gerald North [mailto: On Behalf Of Gerald North Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 10:26 AM To: Robert Bradley Subject: Re: Latest from Curry

2.00 is the value for no cloud feedback. I do not know what cloud feedback is. No one else knows either. But the best tool we have to estimate this is the GCM. They are unanimous. There is the possibility of using earth radiation budget data (a la Lindzen, Murphy et al., and others who all draw different conclusions from each other), but I think it is much less certain than the GCM, because of the short record and many other pitfalls. People should keep looking at this but understand the risk. I suspect that my estimates with Wu are actually better than these at the moment.

I guess I am confused about "litmus test". Jerry

On Apr 25, 2010, at 10:07 AM, Robert Bradley wrote:

Jerry: you have been at 2C for as long as I have known you, up until the lunch in January where you said you were 2C with a +/- .25C.

Why have that litmus test?

From: Gerald North [mailto: On Behalf Of Gerald North Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 9:48 AM To: Robert Bradley Subject: Re: Latest from Curry Once again, you seem to think my old (1998) favorite value for doubling CO2 is 2.00 deg C is my last word on the subject and that I am afraid to say so publicly. It does seem to be the value one would obtain if there were no cloud feedbacks. I am attaching two papers written by Qigang Wu and myself. Qigang was one of my best PhD students (PhD in 2000).

The first, published in 2003 says:

"The data are consistent with models whose sensitivity to CO2 doubling is around 2.7C. The 95% confidence interval for this estimate is (2.3C, 3.1C)". From: Robert Bradley To: "Gerald North" Cc: "Andrew Dessler" Subject: RE: Latest from Curry Date: Sunday, April 25, 2010 11:10:51 AM

Dear Jerry:

And remember:

1) both of you are public servants of the State of Texas as full time paid employees of a state university, and

I am afraid you are 'in denial' under the perverse incentive (grant $$$), group think ('tribalism' as Judith Curry would put it), and mind set (Malthusianism) of most of your profession.

I thought that if you would take a month or two to step back and really think about what you believe, there was a chance you would 'own up' to your private beliefs and how they diverge from the IPCC--just like how your beliefs have diverged from the mini-alarms that big names in your profession have championed (your Chronicle letter-to-the-editor was quite important and even courageous, in retrospect). Judging from the last emails from you to me, I was wrong.

I was also naive to think you would take a closer look at Climategate a la Judith Curry. "These are all her opinions and she has a right to hold and exhibit them" is a cop out when you as a 'middle of the roader' really have an obligation to speak truth to power. She has courage and you do not. She and all of us deserve better from you. This cop- out is what you have told me about James Hansen as a duck (I can pull out those emails if you would like). Is Al Gore or John Holdren excused in this way too? Can anyone hold any belief as if there was not a 'balance of evidence' in the whole climate debate?

- Rob

From: Gerald North [mailto: On Behalf Of Gerald North Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 10:26 AM To: Robert Bradley Subject: Re: Latest from Curry

I guess I am confused about "litmus test". Jerry

On Apr 25, 2010, at 10:07 AM, Robert Bradley wrote:

Jerry: you have been at 2C for as long as I have known you, up until the lunch in January where you said you were 2C with a +/- .25C.

Why have that litmus test?

From: Gerald North [mailto: On Behalf Of Gerald North Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 9:48 AM To: Robert Bradley Subject: Re: Latest from Curry

The first, published in 2003 says:

"The data are consistent with models whose sensitivity to CO2 doubling is around 2.7C. The 95% confidence interval for this estimate is (2.3C, 3.1C)". From: Gerald North To: Andrew Dessler Subject: my latest to Bradley Date: Sunday, April 25, 2010 9:50:45 AM Attachments: (121)Wu&North03.pdf Untitled attachment 66958.htm (135)Wu.karoly.North.GRL.08.pdf Untitled attachment 66961.htm

Is this habit forming? Jerry

Begin forwarded message:

From: Gerald North Date: April 25, 2010 9:47:31 AM CDT To: "Robert Bradley" < Subject: Re: Latest from Curry

The first, published in 2003 says:

"The data are consistent with models whose sensitivity to CO2 doubling is around 2.7C. The 95% confidence interval for this estimate is (2.3C, 3.1C)". Page 1 of 1

The second paper with Qigang Wu was published in 2008 states:

"The observed seasonal cycle is consistent with models whose sensitivity to CO2 doubling is around 3.1C. The 95% confidence interval for this estimate is (1.8C, 4.3C)".

file://C:\Documents and Settings\sky\Local Settings\Temp\A9R6A68.tmp\Untitled attachment 66958.htm 5/11/2012 Page 1 of 3

These results are entirely consistent with the IPCC average and range. Neither study is wholly convincing, but either is perhaps more convincing than the EBM result of yesteryear. But the studies attempt to compare GCMs with one another using heretofore (obscure but) little-used statistics which can be compared to the actual data generated by the models and this in turn compared to the observations. This has been a theme of my work especially with Qigang Wu.

You seem to be trying to pit me against the mainstream of climate researchers and these two studies show that there are many consistency checks that place me right among them. Yes, I am a middle of the road guy. So are they.

I ask that you not post any of my private emails to you on your blog. Too much is taken out of context.a

Jerry

On Apr 25, 2010, at 7:53 AM, Robert Bradley wrote:

We are talking past each other. You are not comfortable dealing with Climategate and continue to insist that you and the IPCC are in lockstep despite your 1/3 lower sensitivity estimate--an estimate that puts the A&M litmus test in trouble.

I am going to go ahead and post next week at MasterResource on all this and hope that you--or Dessler--respond in whatever way you want. Have Dessler do it--he is a blogger unlike you and has very strong opinions.

- Rob

From: Gerald North [mailto: On Behalf Of Gerald North Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 9:55 PM To: Robert Bradley Subject: Re: Latest from Curry

These are all her opinions and she has a right to hold and exhibit them. But what are her positions on the science: sensitivity, anthropogenic component, greenhouse effect, feedbacks. I think they are mainstream like mine and I think she is irritated by the distraction, some of cause of which does fall upon the scientists for their poor handling of the whole affair. She is working hard to restore confidence in the science.

But what does she think the science says?

file://C:\Documents and Settings\sky\Local Settings\Temp\A9R6A65.tmp\Untitled attachment 66961.htm 5/11/2012 Page 2 of 3

Jerry

On Apr 24, 2010, at 8:18 PM, Robert Bradley wrote:

http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2010/04/23/an-inconvenient-provocateur/

Among many other things she says:

Sloppy record keeping, cherry picking of data, and inadequate statistical methods do not constitute scientific misconduct, but neither do they inspire confidence in the research product. Further, the “bad apple” issue is still out there, but this is something that is impossible to assess objectively. And the behavior of these scientists (sloppy record keeping, dismissal of skeptical critiques, and lack of transparency) has slowed down scientific progress in assessing and improving these very important data sets. Therefore I have been proposing that we move away from the focus on individual behavior, and shifting focus to issues related to the IPCC assessment process, addressing issues related the availability of data and transparency of the methods, and to improving the temperature data and proxies. Once these issues are addressed, the “bad apple” issue becomes mostly moot.

IPCC Process:

Corruptions to the IPCC process that I have seen discussed include: • lead/contributing authors assessing their own work – (e.g. von Storch criticism in 2005), in some cases resulting in an overemphasis on their own papers written by themselves and their collaborators; • tailoring graphics and not adequately describing uncertainties ostensibly to simplify and not to “dilute the message” that IPCC wanted to send; • violations of publication (in press) deadlines for inclusions of papers in the IPCC report; • inadequacies in the review process whereby lead/contributing authors don’t respond fairly to adverse criticism; this inadequacy arises in part to the authors themselves having ultimate authority and in part to cursory performance by the Review Editors; • evasiveness and unresponsiveness by the IPCC regarding efforts to investigate alleged violations occurring in the review process; • IPCC Review Editors and authors using the IPCC to avoid accountability under national FOI legislation.

file://C:\Documents and Settings\sky\Local Settings\Temp\A9R6A65.tmp\Untitled attachment 66961.htm 5/11/2012 Page 3 of 3 Pretty serious stuff if you have time to focus on it....

- Rob

Robert L. Bradley Jr. CEO & Founder, Institute for Energy Research 6219 Olympia Drive Houston, Texas 77057–3527 Phone: 713-974-1918 Fax: 713-974-1993

IER Website: www.energyrealism.org Political Capitalism website: www.politicalcapitalism.org Energy Blog: www.MasterResource.org

file://C:\Documents and Settings\sky\Local Settings\Temp\A9R6A65.tmp\Untitled attachment 66961.htm 5/11/2012 Page 1 of 3

I ask that you not post any of my private emails to you on your blog. Too much is taken out of context.a

Jerry

On Apr 25, 2010, at 7:53 AM, Robert Bradley wrote:

- Rob

From: Gerald North [mailto: On Behalf Of Gerald North Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 9:55 PM To: Robert Bradley Subject: Re: Latest from Curry

But what does she think the science says?

file://C:\Documents and Settings\sky\Local Settings\Temp\A9R6A65.tmp\Untitled attachment 66961.htm 5/11/2012 Page 2 of 3

Jerry

On Apr 24, 2010, at 8:18 PM, Robert Bradley wrote:

http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2010/04/23/an-inconvenient-provocateur/

Among many other things she says:

IPCC Process:

file://C:\Documents and Settings\sky\Local Settings\Temp\A9R6A65.tmp\Untitled attachment 66961.htm 5/11/2012 Page 3 of 3 Pretty serious stuff if you have time to focus on it....

- Rob

Robert L. Bradley Jr. CEO & Founder, Institute for Energy Research 6219 Olympia Drive Houston, Texas 77057–3527 Phone: 713-974-1918 Fax: 713-974-1993

IER Website: www.energyrealism.org Political Capitalism website: www.politicalcapitalism.org Energy Blog: www.MasterResource.org

file://C:\Documents and Settings\sky\Local Settings\Temp\A9R6A65.tmp\Untitled attachment 66961.htm 5/11/2012 From: Robert Bradley To: "Gerald North" Cc: "Andrew Dessler" Subject: RE: Latest from Curry Date: Sunday, April 25, 2010 7:54:04 AM

- Rob

From: Gerald North [mailto: On Behalf Of Gerald North Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 9:55 PM To: Robert Bradley Subject: Re: Latest from Curry

But what does she think the science says?

Jerry

On Apr 24, 2010, at 8:18 PM, Robert Bradley wrote:

http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2010/04/23/an-inconvenient-provocateur/

Among many other things she says:

IPCC Process:

Pretty serious stuff if you have time to focus on it....

- Rob

Robert L. Bradley Jr. CEO & Founder, Institute for Energy Research 6219 Olympia Drive Houston, Texas 77057–3527 Phone: 713-974-1918 Fax: 713-974-1993

IER Website: www.energyrealism.org Political Capitalism website: www.politicalcapitalism.org Energy Blog: www.MasterResource.org

From: Robert Bradley To: "Gerald North" Cc: "Eric Berger"; "William Dawson"; "Andrew Dessler"; "Curry, Judith A"; Richard Lindzen; "Chip Knappenberger" Subject: RE: Climate Model Post Date: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 11:01:10 AM

Dear Jerry:

I asked for substantive feedback from you to my post(s) and instead got a sarcastic, emotional response. You are clearly annoyed, but open debate about contentious public public policy issues should not be compromised by personal relationships or 'favors'. And there is nothing wrong about a 'challenge culture' and mid-course corrections, either. We are talking about climate science, after all.

I am going to elaborate as best I can and bring in some more of your own quotations for the record.

Jerry: you are a very interesting and important figure in the climate-change debate-- and one whose views future historians of science should note. Back in 1998, I picked you out of many candidates as a corporate consultant because you seemed to be more open to finding the middle than many of your colleagues. Thinking that Enron was progressive on the climate issue (and they unfortunately were--Ken Lay saw many rent-seeking opportunities with CO2 pricing), you said yes.

“In talking over consulting with ENRON with many friends, I decided to do it, only because of the open-minded position ENRON seems to be taking. I decided that I might even have an influence on what course ENRON eventually takes. I am not concerned with one ideological position or another—just the truth. If ENRON makes use of the truth to make a profit, good show. If ENRON wants to twist the truth to the detriment of everyone else, I will drop out—tarnished but wiser.”

- Gerald North (Texas A&M) to Rob Bradley (Enron), March 25, 1998

I think you provide an excellent 'case study' to understand 1) how the climate alarm got out of control, and 2) how/why a good many in your profession got off scientific track (as evidenced by Climategate and the growing recognition of problems with the IPCC reports).

My Major Point: You Have 'Gone Political' and 'Gone Left' Post-Climategate Despite Your Skepticism About Climate Alarmism--and Climategate Itself

I have a treasure trove of emails from you that are fair and insightful, in retrospect. (And you have stated that you write your emails as if they would be made public-- nothing to fear from your own views.) Some of them are very critical of scientists-- skeptics and alarmists. Your criticisms of the skeptics are public (I can provide citations); your more 'private' views against alarmism should be made public too.

This is why, coming out of our decade-long experience, I was so disappointed that you rented your good name to Dessler's attack on the State of Texas regarding its petition against EPA's endangerment finding.

What happened to the Gerald North of old?

“I did worry that my comment on my not being willing to sign on to Kyoto right now got into the [Houston] Chronicle and in our local paper. I do not like being too public on policy matters. It ain’t my thing.”

- Gerald North (Texas A&M) to Rob Bradley (Enron), October 2, 1998

And your rejection of knee-jerk alarmism:

“As you know I am a subscriber [to man-made warming], but hardly in the Al Gore category. Nor do I have any preconceived ideas about what should be done about GW if anything. I have been busy fending off reporters trying to connect the unusual [El Nino-driven] summer [heat spike] to GW. I even sent an e-mail to Gore.”

- Gerald North (Texas A&M) to Richard Lindzen with cc Rob Bradley (Enron), August 11, 1998

Which also included an open mind toward low-sensitivity warming and the quite possible net positive externalities of GHG emissions, particularly CO2.

“[Robert] Mendelsohn’s position is rather similar to yours…. He believes the impacts are not negative at all for the US and most of the developed countries. Most impact studies seem to be showing this. It leads us to think that a little warming is not so bad. Glad I have kept my mouth shut on this issue of which I know so little.”

- Gerald North (Texas A&M) to Rob Bradley (Enron), November 12, 1999

And given your views, why did you not jump on Climategate in the way that Judith Curry did? You went public (Washington Post, etc.) that Climategate was no big deal and then said you had not read the emails! Have your read Climategate: The Crutape Letters? Why would you not read it with great interest? Where there are plumes of smoke, there is fire.

Some years back, I challenged you on the obvious scientific errors of Al Gore's book/movie, An Inconvenient Truth--including his show-stopper ice age graph on CO2 levels vs. temperature, the very one you had me take out of Enron's stock presentation:

“I do not remember, but I think Gore has used the famous ice age graph correlating CO2 and climate change. I think I had you take it out of your [Enron] presentation if you recall. [Pat] Michaels is right about its irrelevance, but it is really not new to the research community as I stated.”

- Gerald North (Texas A&M) to Rob Bradley (Enron), May 5, 1999

But you simply claimed that you had not and did not want to watch the movie (the 'I- know-nothing' Sgt. Schultz defense that Enron execs used). Yes, you finally reviewed the book beyond its political moment and in a rather apologetic way. But what if you had greeted the book and movie with some tough, sober scientific assessment? You could have really done some good for maintaining scientific standards in the heat of political battle.

And then your tepid Climategate response.

AND then the Chronicle op-ed, which I criticized as scientific 'spin': http://www.masterresource.org/2010/03/reconsidering-the-desslernorth-op-ed/

So much for trying to find the middle of the debate, a middle that your own views champion.

So now let me respond to your email reply in its entirety:

1. Comfort against Climate Alarmism

"I really enjoyed the 'fact' that I saved you from being a 'climate alarmist'."

In fact, your middle-of-the-road stance has been quite comforting to me. I have greater confidence that climate alarmism is very exaggerated. Your warming range is outside of the official IPCC range on the low side--the world should know that even though you have kept this unadvertised. And you alerted me to some bad scientific actors that were pushing the alarm--more comfort amid all of the uncertainty.

Third, your recognition of the exaggerated climate mini-alarms (super storms, disruption of thermohaline circulation, etc.) in personal emails and in a letter-to-the- editor in the Houston Chronicle has been comforting too. The 1998 temperature spike and, more recently, the very bad Gulf Coast hurricanes--why wouldn't I think the something bad from the human influence might be probable?

And so the balance of scientific evidence is against anthropogenic global warming being the mother of all negative externalities. You helped me realize this (wish Enron could have toned down the climate alarmism ... I certainly failed on that one).

Here is some of what you told me:

“[A review of the models] (together with my own toy model prejudice) has led me to think that sensitivity [of climate to greenhouse gas forcing] is collectively ‘coming down.’”

- Gerald North (Texas A&M) to Rob Bradley (Enron), February 1, 1998

“My own conclusion is that we can see the [greenhouse and aerosol] signals (G and V) but they might we weaker than we originally thought.”

- Gerald North (Texas A&M) to Rob Bradley (Enron), May 7, 1999

“As I have argued for years, we simply do not know the answer. There is a wide margin of error in many of the ingredients that go into the models. For example, we do not know some of the radiative properties of the aerosols to a factor of 5. No matter how good your climate model is, you cannot compensate for that uncertainty. The range of uncertainty is broad enough to accommodate [Pat] Michaels (well, maybe North) and Mahlman.”

- Gerald North (Texas A&M) to Rob Bradley (Enron), September 17, 1999

“I am buying the Lindzen story as far as the importance of upper level water vapor…. I am beginning to sense a sea change.”

- Gerald North (Texas A&M) to Rob Bradley (Enron), November 12, 1999

“[Richard] Kerr’s article delved a bit beneath the surface to find who some of the silent skeptics (really noncommittals) are. I suspect there are many more.”

- Gerald North (Texas A&M) to Rob Bradley (Enron), September 17, 1999

“As usual we may have been caught believing our models before we should.”

- Gerald North (Texas A&M) to Rob Bradley (Enron), June 17, 1998

“I think Dick [Lindzen] and I agree on the role of lag in the oceans and the freedom modelers have in using the oceans to help in the fit to the record.”

- Gerald North (Texas A&M) to Rob Bradley (Enron), August 18, 1998

And on extreme events, your message to me back to Enron is unchanged--more comfort.

“In his article Sunday, Rob Bradley reminds us of the errors made about dire climate predictions proffered by some climate science outliers. These have been given undue coverage by politicians and the media (the same can be said about the nay-saying fringe). Virtually all of these dire predictions were never made or endorsed by the mainstream climate community of researchers in the field.

- Gerald North, “Fringe Predictions,” Letter to the Editor, Houston Chronicle, April 1, 2008.

Square this with (Dessler's) recent op-ed co-signed by you that said in part:

"Rising sea levels threaten our coasts; increasing weather variability, including heat waves, droughts, heavy rainfall events and even winter storms, affect our infrastructure, energy and even our health.” (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/6900556.html)

Settled science ... really? Human driven and bad. All bad? Nothing benign or good? Will the real Jerry North please stand up?

2. Andy Dessler

"Frankly, your descriptions of my colleague Andrew Dessler are outrageous. You seem to forget that he spent several hours tutoring you and your student from [Kinkaid] on climate change during a university holiday."

First of all, I am all for Dr. Dessler the scientist refuting or correcting any climate 'skeptic" or anyone else on science. But I would expect that he (as you) would call out bad science by the Al Gores of the world and the 'dire climate predictions' that you mention above. Has he? No, he teams up with the infamous Joe Romm for science presentations for the media and offers no criticism of the alarmists--and Romm's serial exaggerations. I can't help but think that Dessler's political views drive his science rather than the other way around.

At our lunch, I found it a bit 'outrageous' that Dessler said:

1) humankind could be living underground in the future because of the human influence on climate and

2) fossil fuel usage was akin to human slavery.

You remained silent when he made both statements. But how can you not say that this guy is getting over the top, particularly given your own sensitivity estimates and the fact that GHG forcing on climate is logarithmic, not linear, and the enhanced greenhouse signal is more about minimum (nighttime) temperatures going up rather than maximum (daytime) temps rising?

As far as you and him doing me a favor, I used my holiday to drive from Houston to College Station and back with a very top student from a very top high school where I volunteer teach each January. Dessler only came for lunch and declined a post-lunch visit. I bought lunch for everyone out of my own pocket. I paid you well at Enron for consulting--and arranged to pay you $2,500 for speaking at two Houston events a couple of weeks after our lunch. Dessler did you a favor by coming to lunch--and he did me a favor through his favor to you. Fair enough?

The lunch was very valuable for all of us to understand Dr. Dessler's mindset. I was not impressed. He seems to be to be mad at the world and locked-in to a dangerously invasive, open-ended agenda of government planning in the name of 'stabilizing climate'.

Is Andrew Dessler even capable of agreeing with your views and not the IPCC's? Can he even admit that the possibility that the human influence on climate has strong positive effects--and maybe even net positive effects? As a scientist, can he not reasonably make a case that the balance of evidence is working against climate alarmism?

3. Being 'Mocked' in a Blog

As I said to Steve McIntyre after spending hours trying to help him, then being mocked in his blog, "No good deed goes unpunished".

Not fair to me, whatever the story is with McIntyre.

My post did not mock you--it exposed you using your own quotations in a very public debate given your sign-on of the Chronicle op-ed. You mock yourself by leading a double life as a closet 'skeptic' of climate alarmism. Indeed, before the recent Houston debates, you emailed me on not associating you with climate alarmism--just climate concern.

Rob and Dick [Lindzen], Could we change it from "alarm" to "concern"? I won't be claiming alarm. Jerry North, January 4, 2010

Climate concern? A 'concernist' and not an 'alarmist'? Well, lots of us are concerned about all sorts of things that may or may not turn out to be real problems. On the public policy front, I am concerned about energy unaffordability, energy unreliability, energy poverty, carbon trade wars, cap-and-trade profiteering, bogus offsets, and an intrusive carbon bureaucracy. That is why I challenge Dessler and Joe Romm and the like on 'settled' alarmist physical science.

And have you not stated that climate change might be positive and not negative under some realistic scenarios? This gets us back to Mendelsohn. Mendelsohn + North = CO2 as a positive externality and certainly not a ruinously negative one.

My MasterResource blog documented how you have gone Far Left by joining alarmist Dessler in your criticism of the State of Texas petition against EPA. This is probably the most sensitive sentence in my post: Yet Dr. North dare not advertise his dissent or what he believes is climate realism versus model-contrived climate and the resulting alarmism. But you have clear quotable views on climate sensitivity, climate model fudging, and extreme events. What else can you or I say other than I 'outed' you (sorry--but I had to...)? The ball is in your court for a rebuttal if I have misrepresented your views.

Responding to the Real Issues Can you directly respond to the key issues for the record? Climate alarmism and its adjunct, government activism, is a huge public policy issue. You and your Texas A&M colleagues are paid by the taxpayer and are knee deep in taxpayer-funded climate studies. You went public with Dessler in a very public way against the State of Texas despite your own caution against getting political. I think you owe a lot of us, and even the State of Texas, a forthright airing of your 'private' views.

Specifically,

1) Will you forthrightly explain your own 'best guess' sensitivity estimate and what it really means for the debate--and how your estimate is different from the IPCC and certainly Andy Dessler?

2) In light of #1, should the Texas A&M 'litmus' test of climate sensitivity

"If we do nothing to reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases, future warming will likely be at least two degrees Celsius over the next century." http://www.met.tamu.edu/weather-and-climate/climate-change-statement

be changed or even dropped? And is such 'political correctness' what you really want to subject your department too? (You might have to overrule Dessler on this....)

3) Will you respond to my analogy of Climategate and the bad behaviors at Enron, a company you got to know well? (See here: http://climateaudit.org/2010/02/24/rob- bradley-climategate-from-an-enron-perspective/).

[And speaking of Enron analogies, something crossed my mind when I tried to understand your going Left with Dessler post-Climategate. Remember how Ken Lay co-opted Enron's board of directors by giving them use of the company planes and other perks? Conflict of interest. Andy Dessler largely put together the conference in your honor last June (http://atmo.tamu.edu/climate/index.html). Just might this have clouded your judgment in a very public policy matter regarding the op-ed? Do you have the capability with your very close friendship with Andy to tell him "you have gone too far" or "that is not correct" or at least "be careful on that"? Just asking ... and this might be worth thinking about. Friendships and loyalty in place of a tough-love, challenge culture can lead to organizational failure as my forthcoming book, Enron and Ken Lay: An American Tragedy, will explain.]

4) I responded paragraph-by-paragraph and even line-by-line to your Chronicle op-ed critical of the State of Texas re the EPA endangerment finding. http://www.masterresource.org/2010/03/reconsidering-the-desslernorth-op-ed/. I put a lot of time into it. Your response? [Andy, your response?]

Correct Me On Any Particulars

I am afraid to say anything more to you via email.

Let me have it--but on the substance only. You are a great, nice guy, and I ain't so bad myself. (Let's go to an Astros game after this is over....) I do not enjoy what I am doing here--or the conflicts I have found myself in with Rice's Baker Institute at Rice (the Neal Lane problem--we had to go around him/Baker to have your climate debate with Lindzen at Rice) or other conflicts that I find myself in (including at my high school that has had a huge political correctness problem that is now being addressed).

I did not enjoy fighting Enron on windpower and their other (BTW, all money losing) 'green' initiatives--I put my job at risk and was penalized financially for my views expressed inside and outside of the company (http://www.politicalcapitalism.org/enron/). If I was a 'whistleblower' at Enron, or if I am a 'whistleblower' on you, this email is a plea to deal with the issues and come clean. The time for hiding should be over. It's a new ball game post Climategate.

A Final Question (and sorry for having to ask it) Are you an honest man in a partially dishonest profession?

Are too many of your colleagues so imbued with an anti-industrial mentality, a back- to-nature mindset, and government dependence that alarms must be sounded and wagons circled when there is bad behavior, even cheating (Climategate)? Your scathing remarks about Tom Wigley of NCAR, for example (http://masterresource.org/?p=735, and other quotations I have not made public), a relatively clean Climategater, reveal that a number of scientists just don't have the temperament to be scholars and disinterested seekers of truth in the political fire.

Here is hoping that you step back, reevaluate things, and get back to your once noble work of finding the middle ground of the debate between ultra-skepticism and Dessler-style alarmism. Judith Curry could use some company--and maybe other 'closet skeptics' (or just 'closet non-alarmists') will have the courage to come forward. It's the best thing you could do for your profession and for your place in history. And now is the time.

- Rob

Robert L. Bradley Jr. CEO & Founder, Institute for Energy Research 6219 Olympia Drive Houston, Texas 77057–3527 Phone: 713-974-1918 Fax: 713-974-1993

IER Website: www.energyrealism.org Political Capitalism website: www.politicalcapitalism.org Energy Blog: www.MasterResource.org

From: Gerald North [mailto: On Behalf Of Gerald North Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2010 5:42 PM To: Robert Bradley Cc: Eric Berger; William Dawson; Andrew Dessler Subject: Re: Climate Model Post

Rob, I really enjoyed the 'fact' that I saved you from being a 'climate alarmist'. Frankly, your descriptions of my colleague Andrew Dessler are outrageous. You seem to forget that he spent several hours tutoring you and your student from Kincade on climate change during a university holiday. As I said to Steve McIntyre after spending hours trying to help him, then being mocked in his blog, "No good deed goes unpunished". I am afraid to say anything more to you via email. Jerry

On Apr 16, 2010, at 9:26 AM, Robert Bradley wrote:

http://www.masterresource.org/2010/04/climate-model-magic-washington- post-today-gerald-north-yesterday/ in case you missed it.

- Rob

P.S. Jerry, if this post is not fair, let me (us) know.

Robert L. Bradley Jr. CEO & Founder, Institute for Energy Research 6219 Olympia Drive Houston, Texas 77057–3527 Phone: 713-974-1918 Fax: 713-974-1993

IER Website: www.energyrealism.org Political Capitalism website: www.politicalcapitalism.org Energy Blog: www.MasterResource.org

From: Boslough, Mark B To: "Thomas Crowley"; Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; "Philip D. Jones"; "Dr. Krishna AchutaRao"; "Myles Allen"; "Natalia Andronova"; "Tim C Atkinson"; "Rick Anthes"; "Caspar Ammann"; "David C. Bader"; "Tim Barnett"; "Eric Barron"; "Bench, Graham"; "Pat Berge"; "George Boer"; "Celine J. W. Bonfils"; "Bono, James A."; "James Boyle"; "Ray Bradley"; "Robin Bravender"; "Keith Briffa"; "Wolfgang Brueggemann"; "Lisa Butler"; "Ken Caldeira"; "Peter Caldwell"; "Dan Cayan"; "Peter U. Clark"; "Amy Clement"; "Nancy Cole"; "William Collins"; "Tina Conrad"; "Curtis Covey"; "birte dar"; "Davies Trevor Prof"; "Jay Davis"; "Tomas Diaz De La Rubia"; "Andrew Dessler"; "Mike Dettinger"; "Phil Duffy"; "Ehlenbach, Paul J."; "Kerry Emanuel"; "James Estes"; "Eyring, Veronika"; "David Fahey"; "Chris Field"; "Peter Foukal"; "Melissa Free"; "Julio Friedmann"; "Bill Fulkerson"; "Inez Fung"; "Jeff Garberson"; "PETER GENT"; "Nathan Gillett"; "peter gleckler"; "Bill Goldstein"; "Hal Graboske"; "Paul Gross"; "Tom Guilderson"; "Leopold Haimberger"; "Alex Hall"; "James Hansen"; "harvey"; "Klaus Hasselmann"; "Susan Joy Hassol"; "Gabi Hegerl"; "Isaac Held"; "Bob Hirschfeld"; "Jeremy Hobbs"; "Dr. Elisabeth A. Holland"; "Greg Holland"; "Brian Hoskins"; "mhughes"; "James Hurrell"; "Ken Jackson"; [email protected]; "Gardar Johannesson"; "Helen Kang"; "Thomas R Karl"; "David Karoly"; "Jeffrey Kiehl"; "Steve Klein"; "Knutti Reto"; "John Lanzante"; [email protected]; "Ron Lehman"; "John lewis"; "Lloyd, Steven A. (GSFC-610.2)[R S INFORMATION SYSTEMS INC]"; "Jane Long"; "Janice Lough"; "mann"; [email protected]; "Linda Mearns"; "carl mears"; "Jerry Meehl"; "Jerry Melillo"; "George Miller"; "Norman Miller"; "Art Mirin"; "Mitchell, John FB"; "Phil Mote"; "Neville Nicholls"; "Gerald R. North"; "Astrid E.J. Ogilvie"; "Stephanie Ohshita"; "Tim Osborn"; "Ostro, Stu"; [email protected]; "Joyce Penner"; "Thomas C Peterson"; "Tom Phillips"; "David Pierce"; [email protected]; "V. Ramaswamy"; "Ramanathan, Veerabhadran"; "Sarah Raper"; "Phil Rasch"; "Kathryn Rauhut"; "Doug Rotman"; "Terry L. Root"; "Sausen, Robert, DLR"; "jsanter"; "John Schellnhuber"; "David Schimel"; "Michael Schlesinger"; "Gavin Schmidt"; "Christina L. Schomer"; "Stephen H Schneider"; "Lynda Seaver"; "Dian J. Seidel"; "Ted Sheppard"; [email protected]; "Adrian Simmons"; [email protected]; "brian soden"; "Susan Solomon"; "Ken Sperber"; "Anne Stark"; "Thomas Stocker"; "Ronald J Stouffer"; [email protected]; "Karl Taylor"; "claudia tebaldi"; "Teixeira, Joao P"; "Simon Tett"; "Tombrello, Thomas A."; "David Thompson"; "Lonnie Thompson"; "ELLEN THOMPSON"; "Thorne, Peter"; "Kevin E. Trenberth"; "Mike Wallace"; "Bud Ward"; "Warrilow, David (GA)"; "Warren Washington"; "Andrew Weaver"; "Michael Wehner"; "Frank Wentz"; "Whetton, Penny"; "Dean N. Williams"; "Gordon Yano"; "Francis W. Zwiers"; "Conway, Erik M"; "Naomi Oreskes"; "Sanjay Khanna"; "Graham Cogley"; "Jeffrey Kargel"; "W. Crawford Elliott"; "John Weyant"; "Anthony Janetos"; "Sowden, Alison"; "Vernon Squire"; "Eric Garen"; "Peter Cross"; "Charles Zeller"; "Ian Murdock"; "Victoria A Arroyo"; "Rashida Leonard"; "Stephanie Fontenoy"; "John Collee"; "Sarah-jane Potts"; "Greg Dutton"; "Richard B. Rood"; "Brien Seeley"; "Mark Seeley"; "Oliver Morton"; "Cheryl H"; "Richard Somerville"; "Martin Heimann"; "Don Kennedy"; "Heidi Cullen"; "Shari Bell"; "Rebecca Bratspies"; "Pete Myers"; "Michael Oppenheimer"; "Paul Edwards" Subject: RE: On "good deeds" Date: Thursday, April 15, 2010 2:08:47 PM

Folks,

In my presentation to our local New Mexico skeptics group last night, I asked a volunteer from the audience to read passages from the dendroclimatology section of Bradley's textbook (using my hardcover copy, in which I had highlighted the relevant parts). Then I had another volunteer read passages from the Wegman report (in which I had highlighted parallel sentences). I asked the audience to pretend they were professors, and asked them if they would suspect plagiarism if this were a student report. There was a strong consensus of the people present that the evidence merits a plagiarism investigation (the president of the skeptics group has written some plagiarism-detection software and is going to see how it scores). I think this experiment had a bigger effect on the audience's perception of "who do you trust?" than a one-hour lecture on the scientific evidence would have had.

Prof. Wegman may be a nice guy and a competent statistician. He had two coauthors, so he may not have had any role in the authorship of the three pages of the report that appear to have been plagiarized from Bradley. But it is my opinion that evidence for academic misconduct in a report to Congress is worthy of scrutiny, particularly in light of the evidence that members of the Wegman panel had also been coached by a partisan Congressional staffer, which would be improper and possibly illegal.

I don't view this as "tit for tat" or fighting fire with fire. It is simply not fair for climate scientists to be held to a higher standard than their detractors.

The way to win minds is "just the facts" and the climate science community already is doing a good job winning minds by publishing papers, presenting results at scientific conferences, and defending the science in essays and blogs like realclimate. But I am convinced that the real battle is for hearts, in which case there must be an appeal to fairness, with the question "who do you trust?". Moreover, there isn't a lot of press interest in misconduct associated with the Barton investigation, whereas "climategate" email messages that were sent before 2006 made banner headlines (and the "retraction" based on yesterday's news merited a small item on page 3 of today's Albuquerque Journal, which still used a back-handed double-negative). It is painfully obvious that there is an extreme media double standard and a bias against scientists.

I think we need to draw attention to this problem, ask for fairness in reporting, and most of all, appeal to fair-mindedness when we talk to the public.

Mark

> -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Crowley [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2010 10:46 AM > To: > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; 'Philip D. Jones'; > Subject: RE: On "good deeds" > > Quoting "John R. Mashey" < > > I was at the congressional meeting in which wegman spoke - at > least I am pretty sure it was wegman - I actually liked him > and dönt think he has a big ego or a big grudge. I think he > is a good statistician but I dont think he has much > experience with geostatistical problems > > would really not like to see him carved up - prefer keeping > any discussion just 'the facts, ma'am' > > tom > > From: Thomas Crowley To: Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; "Philip D. Jones"; "Dr. Krishna AchutaRao"; "Myles Allen"; "Natalia Andronova"; "Tim C Atkinson"; "Rick Anthes"; "Caspar Ammann"; "David C. Bader"; "Tim Barnett"; "Eric Barron"; "Bench, Graham"; "Pat Berge"; "George Boer"; "Celine J. W. Bonfils"; "Bono, James A."; "Boslough, Mark B"; "James Boyle"; "Ray Bradley"; "Robin Bravender"; "Keith Briffa"; "Wolfgang Brueggemann"; "Lisa Butler"; "Ken Caldeira"; "Peter Caldwell"; "Dan Cayan"; "Peter U. Clark"; "Amy Clement"; "Nancy Cole"; "William Collins"; "Tina Conrad"; "Curtis Covey"; "birte dar"; "Davies Trevor Prof"; "Jay Davis"; "Tomas Diaz De La Rubia"; "Andrew Dessler"; "Mike Dettinger"; "Phil Duffy"; "Ehlenbach, Paul J."; "Kerry Emanuel"; "James Estes"; "Eyring, Veronika"; "David Fahey"; "Chris Field"; "Peter Foukal"; "Melissa Free"; "Julio Friedmann"; "Bill Fulkerson"; "Inez Fung"; "Jeff Garberson"; "PETER GENT"; "Nathan Gillett"; "peter gleckler"; "Bill Goldstein"; "Hal Graboske"; "Paul Gross"; "Tom Guilderson"; "Leopold Haimberger"; "Alex Hall"; "James Hansen"; "harvey"; "Klaus Hasselmann"; "Susan Joy Hassol"; "Gabi Hegerl"; "Isaac Held"; "Bob Hirschfeld"; "Jeremy Hobbs"; "Dr. Elisabeth A. Holland"; "Greg Holland"; "Brian Hoskins"; "mhughes"; "James Hurrell"; "Ken Jackson"; [email protected]; "Gardar Johannesson"; "Helen Kang"; "Thomas R Karl"; "David Karoly"; "Jeffrey Kiehl"; "Steve Klein"; "Knutti Reto"; "John Lanzante"; [email protected]; "Ron Lehman"; "John lewis"; "Lloyd, Steven A. (GSFC-610.2)[R S INFORMATION SYSTEMS INC]"; "Jane Long"; "Janice Lough"; "mann"; [email protected]; "Linda Mearns"; "carl mears"; "Jerry Meehl"; "Jerry Melillo"; "George Miller"; "Norman Miller"; "Art Mirin"; "Mitchell, John FB"; "Phil Mote"; "Neville Nicholls"; "Gerald R. North"; "Astrid E.J. Ogilvie"; "Stephanie Ohshita"; "Tim Osborn"; "Ostro, Stu"; [email protected]; "Joyce Penner"; "Thomas C Peterson"; "Tom Phillips"; "David Pierce"; [email protected]; "V. Ramaswamy"; "Ramanathan, Veerabhadran"; "Sarah Raper"; "Phil Rasch"; "Kathryn Rauhut"; "Doug Rotman"; "Terry L. Root"; "Sausen, Robert, DLR"; "jsanter"; "John Schellnhuber"; "David Schimel"; "Michael Schlesinger"; "Gavin Schmidt"; "Christina L. Schomer"; "Stephen H Schneider"; "Lynda Seaver"; "Dian J. Seidel"; "Ted Sheppard"; [email protected]; "Adrian Simmons"; [email protected]; "brian soden"; "Susan Solomon"; "Ken Sperber"; "Anne Stark"; "Thomas Stocker"; "Ronald J Stouffer"; [email protected]; "Karl Taylor"; "claudia tebaldi"; "Teixeira, Joao P"; "Simon Tett"; "Tombrello, Thomas A."; "David Thompson"; "Lonnie Thompson"; "ELLEN THOMPSON"; "Thorne, Peter"; "Kevin E. Trenberth"; "Mike Wallace"; "Bud Ward"; "Warrilow, David (GA)"; "Warren Washington"; "Andrew Weaver"; "Michael Wehner"; "Frank Wentz"; "Whetton, Penny"; "Dean N. Williams"; "Gordon Yano"; "Francis W. Zwiers"; "Conway, Erik M"; "Naomi Oreskes"; "Sanjay Khanna"; "Graham Cogley"; "Jeffrey Kargel"; "W. Crawford Elliott"; "John Weyant"; "Anthony Janetos"; "Sowden, Alison"; "Vernon Squire"; "Eric Garen"; "Peter Cross"; "Charles Zeller"; "Ian Murdock"; "Victoria A Arroyo"; "Rashida Leonard"; "Stephanie Fontenoy"; "John Collee"; "Sarah-jane Potts"; "Greg Dutton"; "Richard B. Rood"; "Brien Seeley"; "Mark Seeley"; "Oliver Morton"; "Cheryl H"; "Richard Somerville"; "Martin Heimann"; "Don Kennedy"; "Heidi Cullen"; "Shari Bell"; "Rebecca Bratspies"; "Pete Myers"; "Michael Oppenheimer"; "Paul Edwards" Subject: RE: On "good deeds" Date: Thursday, April 15, 2010 11:57:23 AM

Quoting "John R. Mashey" <

I was at the congressional meeting in which wegman spoke - at least I am pretty sure it was wegman - I actually liked him and dönt think he has a big ego or a big grudge. I think he is a good statistician but I dont think he has much experience with geostatistical problems would really not like to see him carved up - prefer keeping any discussion just 'the facts, ma'am' tom

> Speaking as an external observer of all this: > > 1) First, for Dr. Jones, I too am happy to see this result. I've known Ron > Oxburgh for years, so I wasn't surprised to see a sensible and sometimes > blunt result. > > 2) re: Professor Hand: In 2006, I think Ed Wegman & co tried to manufacture > a fight between statisticians and climate scientists. I don't think that > effort really got very far (statisticians are mostly smarter than that), but > I offer a few suggestions on tactics to avoid it. > > 3) In my experience, when professional statisticians (or professional > software engineers) look at research (or software written for research), it > is *almost guaranteed* that many will say: > "Could be better, should have more involvement from statisticians (software > engineers)." > > I think this comment usually arises from (commendable) desire for excellence > of application of one's own specialty. "Self-serving" might sometimes be > true, but is probably not a productive argument, as it plays into the wrong > people's hands. Specialists often focus on making their part of something > excellent, but sometimes without seeing the broader context. > > By contrast, I love John Tukey's quote: > "?Far better an approximate answer to the right question, which is often > vague, than an exact answer to the wrong question, which can always be made > precise." > > 4) "Ignorance" might be also true, but ignorance can be fixed. Three > flavors are apparent: > > a) Some statisticians naturally do not understand the extent of existing > interaction between climate scientists and statisticians. (Parallel: many > software engineers don't understand the differences between research > software and production-grade software products.) > > b) If they get focussed on minutiae of statistics (software engineering), > some forget about funding realities in most institutions. I worked at Bell > Labs for 10 years. We could fund world-class statisticians (like Tukey, > Joe Kruskal, John Chambers ("S" => "R" language), part of whose explicit > mission was to help others use good statistics, not quite so often the > charter in academe. Managers also knew the difference between "Perfect" and > "Good enough, soon enough, at reasonable cost." Even with (very nice!) > monopoly money, one could not fund everything. > > c) Statisticians (and those generally focused on specific base > methodologies) sometimes over-generalize from experiences in one science > discipline into another. Wegman's group seems to have charged into (human) > social network analysis without talking to sociologists much, while > crunching away with math they'd been using for analyzing computer networks. > > 5) So, as some of you have done, you might consider saying things like: > > a) We often already work with good statisticians, but we would happily > accept funding to do more. > > b) Climate science has many interesting statistics problems, so send over > grad students with relevant science backgrounds. We'll happily visit the > stats department and offer occasional seminars on our sorts of problems and > suggest courses to be taken to get the relevant backgrounds. > > c) We'd like to talk to the stats department about course material that is > relevant to our sorts of research. [In many universities, typical stats > courses, especially introductory ones, seem more optimized for social > sciences than anything else. Students sometimes avoid them, or other > departments end up teaching their own, tuned to the needs of their own > students.] > > Some of these (good) things might occasionally even happen :-) ... but > simply taking a consistent stance like this might well defuse potential > fights people are trying to manufacture and that suck in statisticians who > say what they almost always say :-) > > For more, the attached 1-page PDF Essay " Statistics and Statisticians - > Opinions" was extracted from > http://www.desmogblog.com/crescendo-climategate-cacophony that some of you > have seen. > > 6) But really, some people *want* statisticians to get pulled into fights > with climate science, and it seems easy enough to avoid. > > > > >

-- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. From: Gabi Hegerl To: Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; "Philip D. Jones"; "Dr. Krishna AchutaRao"; "Myles Allen"; "Natalia Andronova"; "Tim C Atkinson"; "Rick Anthes"; "Caspar Ammann"; "David C. Bader"; "Tim Barnett"; "Eric Barron"; "Bench, Graham"; "Pat Berge"; "George Boer"; "Celine J. W. Bonfils"; "Bono, James A."; "Boslough, Mark B"; "James Boyle"; "Ray Bradley"; "Robin Bravender"; "Keith Briffa"; "Wolfgang Brueggemann"; "Lisa Butler"; "Ken Caldeira"; "Peter Caldwell"; "Dan Cayan"; "Peter U. Clark"; "Amy Clement"; "Nancy Cole"; "William Collins"; "Tina Conrad"; "Curtis Covey"; "Thomas Crowley"; "birte dar"; "Davies Trevor Prof"; "Jay Davis"; "Tomas Diaz De La Rubia"; "Andrew Dessler"; "Mike Dettinger"; "Phil Duffy"; "Ehlenbach, Paul J."; "Kerry Emanuel"; "James Estes"; "Eyring, Veronika"; "David Fahey"; "Chris Field"; "Peter Foukal"; "Melissa Free"; "Julio Friedmann"; "Bill Fulkerson"; "Inez Fung"; "Jeff Garberson"; "PETER GENT"; "Nathan Gillett"; "peter gleckler"; "Bill Goldstein"; "Hal Graboske"; "Paul Gross"; "Tom Guilderson"; "Leopold Haimberger"; "Alex Hall"; "James Hansen"; "harvey"; "Klaus Hasselmann"; "Susan Joy Hassol"; "Isaac Held"; "Bob Hirschfeld"; "Jeremy Hobbs"; "Dr. Elisabeth A. Holland"; "Greg Holland"; "Brian Hoskins"; "mhughes"; "James Hurrell"; "Ken Jackson"; [email protected]; "Gardar Johannesson"; "Helen Kang"; "Thomas R Karl"; "David Karoly"; "Jeffrey Kiehl"; "Steve Klein"; "Knutti Reto"; "John Lanzante"; [email protected]; "Ron Lehman"; "John lewis"; "Lloyd, Steven A. (GSFC-610.2)[R S INFORMATION SYSTEMS INC]"; "Jane Long"; "Janice Lough"; "mann"; [email protected]; "Linda Mearns"; "carl mears"; "Jerry Meehl"; "Jerry Melillo"; "George Miller"; "Norman Miller"; "Art Mirin"; "Mitchell, John FB"; "Phil Mote"; "Neville Nicholls"; "Gerald R. North"; "Astrid E.J. Ogilvie"; "Stephanie Ohshita"; "Tim Osborn"; "Ostro, Stu"; [email protected]; "Joyce Penner"; "Thomas C Peterson"; "Tom Phillips"; "David Pierce"; [email protected]; "V. Ramaswamy"; "Ramanathan, Veerabhadran"; "Sarah Raper"; "Phil Rasch"; "Kathryn Rauhut"; "Doug Rotman"; "Terry L. Root"; "Sausen, Robert, DLR"; "jsanter"; "John Schellnhuber"; "David Schimel"; "Michael Schlesinger"; "Gavin Schmidt"; "Christina L. Schomer"; "Stephen H Schneider"; "Lynda Seaver"; "Dian J. Seidel"; "Ted Sheppard"; [email protected]; "Adrian Simmons"; [email protected]; "brian soden"; "Susan Solomon"; "Ken Sperber"; "Anne Stark"; "Thomas Stocker"; "Ronald J Stouffer"; [email protected]; "Karl Taylor"; "claudia tebaldi"; "Teixeira, Joao P"; "Simon Tett"; "Tombrello, Thomas A."; "David Thompson"; "Lonnie Thompson"; "ELLEN THOMPSON"; "Thorne, Peter"; "Kevin E. Trenberth"; "Mike Wallace"; "Bud Ward"; "Warrilow, David (GA)"; "Warren Washington"; "Andrew Weaver"; "Michael Wehner"; "Frank Wentz"; "Whetton, Penny"; "Dean N. Williams"; "Gordon Yano"; "Francis W. Zwiers"; "Conway, Erik M"; "Naomi Oreskes"; "Sanjay Khanna"; "Graham Cogley"; "Jeffrey Kargel"; "W. Crawford Elliott"; "John Weyant"; "Anthony Janetos"; "Sowden, Alison"; "Vernon Squire"; "Eric Garen"; "Peter Cross"; "Charles Zeller"; "Ian Murdock"; "Victoria A Arroyo"; "Rashida Leonard"; "Stephanie Fontenoy"; "John Collee"; "Sarah-jane Potts"; "Greg Dutton"; "Richard B. Rood"; "Brien Seeley"; "Mark Seeley"; "Oliver Morton"; "Cheryl H"; "Richard Somerville"; "Martin Heimann"; "Don Kennedy"; "Heidi Cullen"; "Shari Bell"; "Rebecca Bratspies"; "Pete Myers"; "Michael Oppenheimer"; "Paul Edwards" Subject: Re: On "good deeds" Date: Thursday, April 15, 2010 11:55:46 AM

Excellent points! There is a long-standing tradition of collaboration between stats and climate research, eg the NCAR postdoc program, there are lots of projects involving statisticians (I am on several), and strings of meetings (one of them, the International Meeting on Statistical Climatology, is going into its 11th round this July, and aims at bringing together statisticians and climate people. Very good attendance, I am drowning in abstracts for this years version in Edinburgh - sorry for the plug for this meeting but it was hard to resist (more on my personal home page)!) there are also a number of high profile people with a stats background (eg Francis Zwiers, Claudia Tebaldi) who actively publish in climate research.

So it seems that neither this particular statistician, nor Wegman, are well informed

Gabi

John R. Mashey wrote: > Speaking as an external observer of all this: > > 1) First, for Dr. Jones, I too am happy to see this result. I've known Ron > Oxburgh for years, so I wasn't surprised to see a sensible and sometimes > blunt result. > > 2) re: Professor Hand: In 2006, I think Ed Wegman & co tried to manufacture > a fight between statisticians and climate scientists. I don't think that > effort really got very far (statisticians are mostly smarter than that), but > I offer a few suggestions on tactics to avoid it. > > 3) In my experience, when professional statisticians (or professional > software engineers) look at research (or software written for research), it > is *almost guaranteed* that many will say: > "Could be better, should have more involvement from statisticians (software > engineers)." > > I think this comment usually arises from (commendable) desire for excellence > of application of one's own specialty. "Self-serving" might sometimes be > true, but is probably not a productive argument, as it plays into the wrong > people's hands. Specialists often focus on making their part of something > excellent, but sometimes without seeing the broader context. > > By contrast, I love John Tukey's quote: > "--Far better an approximate answer to the right question, which is often > vague, than an exact answer to the wrong question, which can always be made > precise." > > 4) "Ignorance" might be also true, but ignorance can be fixed. Three > flavors are apparent: > > a) Some statisticians naturally do not understand the extent of existing > interaction between climate scientists and statisticians. (Parallel: many > software engineers don't understand the differences between research > software and production-grade software products.) > > b) If they get focussed on minutiae of statistics (software engineering), > some forget about funding realities in most institutions. I worked at Bell > Labs for 10 years. We could fund world-class statisticians (like Tukey, > Joe Kruskal, John Chambers ("S" => "R" language), part of whose explicit > mission was to help others use good statistics, not quite so often the > charter in academe. Managers also knew the difference between "Perfect" and > "Good enough, soon enough, at reasonable cost." Even with (very nice!) > monopoly money, one could not fund everything. > > c) Statisticians (and those generally focused on specific base > methodologies) sometimes over-generalize from experiences in one science > discipline into another. Wegman's group seems to have charged into (human) > social network analysis without talking to sociologists much, while > crunching away with math they'd been using for analyzing computer networks. > > 5) So, as some of you have done, you might consider saying things like: > > a) We often already work with good statisticians, but we would happily > accept funding to do more. > > b) Climate science has many interesting statistics problems, so send over > grad students with relevant science backgrounds. We'll happily visit the > stats department and offer occasional seminars on our sorts of problems and > suggest courses to be taken to get the relevant backgrounds. > > c) We'd like to talk to the stats department about course material that is > relevant to our sorts of research. [In many universities, typical stats > courses, especially introductory ones, seem more optimized for social > sciences than anything else. Students sometimes avoid them, or other > departments end up teaching their own, tuned to the needs of their own > students.] > > Some of these (good) things might occasionally even happen :-) ... but > simply taking a consistent stance like this might well defuse potential > fights people are trying to manufacture and that suck in statisticians who > say what they almost always say :-) > > For more, the attached 1-page PDF Essay " Statistics and Statisticians - > Opinions" was extracted from > http://www.desmogblog.com/crescendo-climategate-cacophony that some of you > have seen. > > 6) But really, some people *want* statisticians to get pulled into fights > with climate science, and it seems easy enough to avoid. > > > > >

------Gabriele Hegerl Chair of Climate System Science School of GeoSciences, University of Edinburgh Grant Institute, The King's Buildings, West Mains Road EDINBURGH EH9 3JW Phone: +44 (0) 131 6519092, FAX: +44 (0) 131 668 3184 http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/people/person.html?indv=1613 Email: [email protected] ------

The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. From: John R. Mashey To: [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: "Philip D. Jones"; "Dr. Krishna AchutaRao"; "Myles Allen"; "Natalia Andronova"; "Tim C Atkinson"; "Rick Anthes"; "Caspar Ammann"; "David C. Bader"; "Tim Barnett"; "Eric Barron"; "Bench, Graham"; "Pat Berge"; "George Boer"; "Celine J. W. Bonfils"; "Bono, James A."; "Boslough, Mark B"; "James Boyle"; "Ray Bradley"; "Robin Bravender"; "Keith Briffa"; "Wolfgang Brueggemann"; "Lisa Butler"; "Ken Caldeira"; "Peter Caldwell"; "Dan Cayan"; "Peter U. Clark"; "Amy Clement"; "Nancy Cole"; "William Collins"; "Tina Conrad"; "Curtis Covey"; "Thomas Crowley"; "birte dar"; "Davies Trevor Prof"; "Jay Davis"; "Tomas Diaz De La Rubia"; "Andrew Dessler"; "Mike Dettinger"; "Phil Duffy"; "Ehlenbach, Paul J."; "Kerry Emanuel"; "James Estes"; "Eyring, Veronika"; "David Fahey"; "Chris Field"; "Peter Foukal"; "Melissa Free"; "Julio Friedmann"; "Bill Fulkerson"; "Inez Fung"; "Jeff Garberson"; "PETER GENT"; "Nathan Gillett"; "peter gleckler"; "Bill Goldstein"; "Hal Graboske"; "Paul Gross"; "Tom Guilderson"; "Leopold Haimberger"; "Alex Hall"; "James Hansen"; "harvey"; "Klaus Hasselmann"; "Susan Joy Hassol"; "Gabi Hegerl"; "Isaac Held"; "Bob Hirschfeld"; "Jeremy Hobbs"; "Dr. Elisabeth A. Holland"; "Greg Holland"; "Brian Hoskins"; "mhughes"; "James Hurrell"; "Ken Jackson"; [email protected]; "Gardar Johannesson"; "Helen Kang"; "Thomas R Karl"; "David Karoly"; "Jeffrey Kiehl"; "Steve Klein"; "Knutti Reto"; "John Lanzante"; [email protected]; "Ron Lehman"; "John lewis"; "Lloyd, Steven A. (GSFC-610.2)[R S INFORMATION SYSTEMS INC]"; "Jane Long"; "Janice Lough"; "mann"; [email protected]; "Linda Mearns"; "carl mears"; "Jerry Meehl"; "Jerry Melillo"; "George Miller"; "Norman Miller"; "Art Mirin"; "Mitchell, John FB"; "Phil Mote"; "Neville Nicholls"; "Gerald R. North"; "Astrid E.J. Ogilvie"; "Stephanie Ohshita"; "Tim Osborn"; "Ostro, Stu"; [email protected]; "Joyce Penner"; "Thomas C Peterson"; "Tom Phillips"; "David Pierce"; [email protected]; "V. Ramaswamy"; "Ramanathan, Veerabhadran"; "Sarah Raper"; "Phil Rasch"; "Kathryn Rauhut"; "Doug Rotman"; "Terry L. Root"; "Sausen, Robert, DLR"; "jsanter"; "John Schellnhuber"; "David Schimel"; "Michael Schlesinger"; "Gavin Schmidt"; "Christina L. Schomer"; "Stephen H Schneider"; "Lynda Seaver"; "Dian J. Seidel"; "Ted Sheppard"; [email protected]; "Adrian Simmons"; [email protected]; "brian soden"; "Susan Solomon"; "Ken Sperber"; "Anne Stark"; "Thomas Stocker"; "Ronald J Stouffer"; [email protected]; "Karl Taylor"; "claudia tebaldi"; "Teixeira, Joao P"; "Simon Tett"; "Tombrello, Thomas A."; "David Thompson"; "Lonnie Thompson"; "ELLEN THOMPSON"; "Thorne, Peter"; "Kevin E. Trenberth"; "Mike Wallace"; "Bud Ward"; "Warrilow, David (GA)"; "Warren Washington"; "Andrew Weaver"; "Michael Wehner"; "Frank Wentz"; "Whetton, Penny"; "Dean N. Williams"; "Gordon Yano"; "Francis W. Zwiers"; "Conway, Erik M"; "Naomi Oreskes"; "Sanjay Khanna"; "Graham Cogley"; "Jeffrey Kargel"; "W. Crawford Elliott"; "John Weyant"; "Anthony Janetos"; "Sowden, Alison"; "Vernon Squire"; "Eric Garen"; "Peter Cross"; "Charles Zeller"; "Ian Murdock"; "Victoria A Arroyo"; "Rashida Leonard"; "Stephanie Fontenoy"; "John Collee"; "Sarah-jane Potts"; "Greg Dutton"; "Richard B. Rood"; "Brien Seeley"; "Mark Seeley"; "Oliver Morton"; "Cheryl H"; "Richard Somerville"; "Martin Heimann"; "Don Kennedy"; "Heidi Cullen"; "Shari Bell"; "Rebecca Bratspies"; "Pete Myers"; "Michael Oppenheimer"; "Paul Edwards" Subject: RE: On "good deeds" Date: Thursday, April 15, 2010 11:23:58 AM Attachments: Page.172. crescendo.climategate.cacophony.v1.0.pdf

Speaking as an external observer of all this:

1) First, for Dr. Jones, I too am happy to see this result. I've known Ron Oxburgh for years, so I wasn't surprised to see a sensible and sometimes blunt result.

2) re: Professor Hand: In 2006, I think Ed Wegman & co tried to manufacture a fight between statisticians and climate scientists. I don't think that effort really got very far (statisticians are mostly smarter than that), but I offer a few suggestions on tactics to avoid it.

3) In my experience, when professional statisticians (or professional software engineers) look at research (or software written for research), it is *almost guaranteed* that many will say: "Could be better, should have more involvement from statisticians (software engineers)."

I think this comment usually arises from (commendable) desire for excellence of application of one's own specialty. "Self-serving" might sometimes be true, but is probably not a productive argument, as it plays into the wrong people's hands. Specialists often focus on making their part of something excellent, but sometimes without seeing the broader context.

By contrast, I love John Tukey's quote: ȸ)DUEHWWHUDQDSSUR[LPDWHDQVZHUWRWKHULJKWTXHVWLRQZKLFKLVRIWHQ vague, than an exact answer to the wrong question, which can always be made precise."

4) "Ignorance" might be also true, but ignorance can be fixed. Three flavors are apparent: a) Some statisticians naturally do not understand the extent of existing interaction between climate scientists and statisticians. (Parallel: many software engineers don't understand the differences between research software and production-grade software products.) b) If they get focussed on minutiae of statistics (software engineering), some forget about funding realities in most institutions. I worked at Bell Labs for 10 years. We could fund world-class statisticians (like Tukey, Joe Kruskal, John Chambers ("S" => "R" language), part of whose explicit mission was to help others use good statistics, not quite so often the charter in academe. Managers also knew the difference between "Perfect" and "Good enough, soon enough, at reasonable cost." Even with (very nice!) monopoly money, one could not fund everything. c) Statisticians (and those generally focused on specific base methodologies) sometimes over-generalize from experiences in one science discipline into another. Wegman's group seems to have charged into (human) social network analysis without talking to sociologists much, while crunching away with math they'd been using for analyzing computer networks.

5) So, as some of you have done, you might consider saying things like: a) We often already work with good statisticians, but we would happily accept funding to do more. b) Climate science has many interesting statistics problems, so send over grad students with relevant science backgrounds. We'll happily visit the stats department and offer occasional seminars on our sorts of problems and suggest courses to be taken to get the relevant backgrounds. c) We'd like to talk to the stats department about course material that is relevant to our sorts of research. [In many universities, typical stats courses, especially introductory ones, seem more optimized for social sciences than anything else. Students sometimes avoid them, or other departments end up teaching their own, tuned to the needs of their own students.]

Some of these (good) things might occasionally even happen :-) ... but simply taking a consistent stance like this might well defuse potential fights people are trying to manufacture and that suck in statisticians who say what they almost always say :-)

For more, the attached 1-page PDF Essay " Statistics and Statisticians - Opinions" was extracted from http://www.desmogblog.com/crescendo-climategate-cacophony that some of you have seen.

6) But really, some people *want* statisticians to get pulled into fights with climate science, and it seems easy enough to avoid. Crescendo to ClimateGate Cacophony V1.0 03/15/10

A.10.4 Statistics and Statisticians - Opinions This is not yet another rehash of the old arguments. It just background, so the reader might easily skip it. I offer general comments derived from trying to model my thinking after John Tukey [TUK1977], one of WKHZRUOG¶VJUHDWHVWVWDWLVWLFLDQV, who long worked at Princeton and Bell Labs. The latter used statistics extensively. It employed world-class statisticians whose jobs also included helping many others do better statistics. He was a strong proponent of balancing well-known confirmatory statistics with exploratory data analysis, on which much science depends. Some of my favorite quotes of his are, via: en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Tukey ³The combination of some data and an aching desire for an answer does not ensure that a reasonable answer can be H[WUDFWHGIURPDJLYHQERG\RIGDWD´ ³)DUEHWWHUDQ appro ximate answer to the right question, which is often vague, than an exact answer to the wrong TXHVWLRQZKLFKFDQDOZD\VEHPDGHSUHFLVH´ Since he is deceased, we cannot ask him what he would have thought about {MBH98, MBH99, MM05, WR}. I worked at Bell Labs 1973-1983, as an MTS and then Supervisor. Papers to be published externally first needed reviews by 2 other divisions, and those reviews were widely regarded as tougher WKDQH[WHUQDOSHHUUHYLHZLQJRRGMRXUQDOV 3DSHUVZHQWXSWKHDXWKRUV¶PDQagement chain to Executive Director, then to two other Executive Directors, in whose organizations reviewers were found. Reviews returned through those EDs, EDFNWRRQH¶VRZQ('DQGWKHQGRZQWKURXJKWKHPDQDJHPHQWFKDLQto the author(s). I once approved a (very negative) review by one of my subordinates, which caused my ED to ZULWHDQRWHWRWKHDXWKRUV¶('VD\LQJ³2QFHDJDLQ,DPIRUFHGWRUHMHFWDSDSHUWKDWP\SHRSOHWKLQNLV MXQNDQG,DJUHH´ Negative OHWWHUVSDVVHGWKURXJKWKHDXWKRUV¶HQWLUHmanagement chain, were not usually viewed as career plusses. Papers with substantial statistics inevitably got reviewed by Tukey or his associates, so his worldview was known. I guess that he would have thought MBH98/99 got reasonable, if approximate answers, even if some VWDWLVWLFVZHUHIODZHGEHFDXVHWKHIODZVGLGQ¶WUHDOO\PDNHDVLJQLILFDQWGLIIHUHQFH 7KRVHSDSHUVKHOSHG point the way for further research that generally confirmed and refined the earlier work. Statistical methods improved meanwhile. I think he would have found successive paleoclimate reconstructions to be good, interesting science and fascinating examples of extracting signal from noise, a subject in which he had some expertise.

Tukey cared deeply about using statistics to help science find better answers. I think he would be utterly appalled at endless wallowing in statistical minutiae in ways guaranteed to obscure insight, especially years after real science had moved on. Of course, all this is just my opinion and it could be totally wrong, but if someone disagrees without exposure to him, they should try reading the first few pages of that book, still a classic, even if paper-and-pencil have been supplanted by computers.

I have long heard complaints from statisticians about not getting consulted enough. In fact, that is often a legitimate complaint. I have personally fought a long, partially-successful battle to introduce more statistical methods into one of my old fields, computer architecture. However, most places, especially universities, lack enough statisticians to spend much time in long domain-specific joint analyses, although many statistics departments admirably provide some outreach and statistical support for others. Academic statisticians often publish in statistics journals, not unfamiliar ones where paleoclimate reconstructions might appear. Universities rarely insist on multiple-department internal review before allowing submission of a paper externally. Even if they did, nobody has the time to do that often.

Bell Labs was rare in having world-class statisticians who not only did their own research, but helped other employees, reviewed papers, and built tools to help non-VWDWLVWLFLDQVGREHWWHUVWDWLVWLFV -RKQ&KDPEHUV¶ S, predecessor of R, came from the same organization as Tukey.) I would be ecstatic to see higher statistical literacy and skill, but sometimes statisticians also need more context about the science. Not understanding the science may well be more problematic than not being perfect on the statistics.

172 From: Phil Jones To: [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Dr. Krishna AchutaRao; Myles Allen; Natalia Andronova; Tim C Atkinson; Rick Anthes; Caspar Ammann; David C. Bader; Tim Barnett; Eric Barron; Bench, Graham; Pat Berge; George Boer; Celine J. W. Bonfils; Bono, James A.; Boslough, Mark B; James Boyle; Ray Bradley; Robin Bravender; Keith Briffa; Wolfgang Brueggemann; Lisa Butler; "Ken Caldeira"; Peter Caldwell; Dan Cayan; Peter U. Clark; Amy Clement; Nancy Cole; William Collins; Tina Conrad; Curtis Covey; Thomas Crowley; birte dar; Davies Trevor Prof; Jay Davis; Tomas Diaz De La Rubia; Andrew Dessler; Mike Dettinger; Phil Duffy; Ehlenbach, Paul J.; Kerry Emanuel; James Estes; Eyring, Veronika; David Fahey; Chris Field; Peter Foukal; Melissa Free; Julio Friedmann; Bill Fulkerson; Inez Fung; Jeff Garberson; PETER GENT; Nathan Gillett; peter gleckler; Bill Goldstein; Hal Graboske; Paul Gross; Tom Guilderson; Leopold Haimberger; Alex Hall; James Hansen; harvey; Klaus Hasselmann; Susan Joy Hassol; Gabi Hegerl; Isaac Held; Bob Hirschfeld; Jeremy Hobbs; Dr. Elisabeth A. Holland; Greg Holland; Brian Hoskins; mhughes; James Hurrell; Ken Jackson; [email protected]; Gardar Johannesson; Helen Kang; Thomas R Karl; David Karoly; Jeffrey Kiehl; Steve Klein; Knutti Reto; John Lanzante; [email protected]; Ron Lehman; John lewis; Lloyd, Steven A. (GSFC-610.2)[R S INFORMATION SYSTEMS INC]; Jane Long; Janice Lough; mann; [email protected]; Linda Mearns; carl mears; Jerry Meehl; Jerry Melillo; George Miller; Norman Miller; Art Mirin; Mitchell, John FB; Phil Mote; Neville Nicholls; Gerald R. North; Astrid E.J. Ogilvie; Stephanie Ohshita; Tim Osborn; Ostro, Stu; [email protected]; Joyce Penner; Thomas C Peterson; Tom Phillips; David Pierce; [email protected]; V. Ramaswamy; Ramanathan, Veerabhadran; Sarah Raper; Phil Rasch; Kathryn Rauhut; Doug Rotman; Terry L. Root; Sausen, Robert, DLR; jsanter; John Schellnhuber; David Schimel; "Michael Schlesinger"; Gavin Schmidt; Christina L. Schomer; Stephen H Schneider; Lynda Seaver; "Dian J. Seidel"; Ted Sheppard; [email protected]; Adrian Simmons; [email protected]; brian soden; Susan Solomon; Ken Sperber; Anne Stark; Thomas Stocker; Ronald J Stouffer; [email protected]; Karl Taylor; claudia tebaldi; Teixeira, Joao P; Simon Tett; Tombrello, Thomas A.; David Thompson; Lonnie Thompson; ELLEN THOMPSON; Thorne, Peter; "Kevin E. Trenberth"; Mike Wallace; Bud Ward; Warrilow, David (GA); Warren Washington; Andrew Weaver; Michael Wehner; Frank Wentz; Whetton, Penny; Tom Wigley; Dean N. Williams; Gordon Yano; "Francis W. Zwiers"; Conway, Erik M; Naomi Oreskes; Sanjay Khanna; Graham Cogley; Jeffrey Kargel; W. Crawford Elliott; John Weyant; Anthony Janetos; Sowden, Alison; Vernon Squire; Eric Garen; "Peter Cross"; "Charles Zeller"; Ian Murdock; Victoria A Arroyo; Rashida Leonard; Stephanie Fontenoy; John Collee; Sarah- jane Potts; "Greg Dutton"; Richard B. Rood; Brien Seeley; Mark Seeley; Oliver Morton; Cheryl H; Richard Somerville; Martin Heimann; Don Kennedy; Heidi Cullen; Shari Bell; Rebecca Bratspies; Pete Myers; Michael Oppenheimer; Paul Edwards Subject: Re: On "good deeds" Date: Thursday, April 15, 2010 3:38:13 AM

Tom et al,

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18776-climategate-scientists-chastised-over-statistics.html

Above is how Hand went a stage further - providing succour to the skeptics!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/apr/14/oxburgh-uea-cleared-malpractice/print

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/15/climate-science-hacked-emails/print

Above are two more awful pieces of journalism from the paper I used to read! What point is the Guardian trying to make.

I've finally got the point - they are trying to sell a product, which they call a newspaper.

Thanks for all the support!

Phil

At 08:53 15/04/2010, [email protected] wrote:

>Phil (and others) > >The Oxburgh report was good to see. Peiser's comments predictable. > >But Prof. Hand's statement about more contact with statisticians was >both self-serving ans ignorant. > >Tom >(from Borneo) > >+++++++++++++ > > Dear Phil, > > > > I was very gratified to read the report released earlier today by Lord > > Oxburgh. The report affirms the integrity and reliability of the > > scientific research that you and your colleagues conducted at the > > University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU). > > > > I am hopeful that the difficult times you have faced are now approaching > > an end, and that you will be able to return to full-time scientific > > research in the near future. > > > > 14 years ago, during the peak of my IPCC difficulties, I read a poem in > > a book about Robert Oppenheimer. I've never forgotten the poem. It is > > now on one of the walls in my office: > > > > "In the forest, in battle, in the midst of arrows, javelins, fire, > > Out on the great sea, at the precipice's edge in the mountains, > > In sleep, in delirium, in deep trouble > > The good deeds a man has done before defend him." > > > > Phil, you have done many "good deeds" over the course of your scientific > > career. These "good deeds" are manifest in your science, in your > > tireless service on behalf of the IPCC, in your mentoring of young > > scientists, and in many other aspects of your career. > > > > These good deeds defend you now, and will continue to defend you in the > > future. > > > > You deserve the thanks of the entire scientific community. > > > > With best personal wishes, > > > > Ben > > > ------> > Benjamin D. Santer > > Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison > > Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory > > P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103 > > Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A. > > Tel: (925) 422-3840 > > FAX: (925) 422-7675 > > email: [email protected] > > > ------> >

Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK Email [email protected] ------IMPORTANT NOTICE - This email is intended for the named recipient only. It may contain privileged and confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, notify the sender immediately and destroy this email. You must not copy, distribute or take action in reliance upon it. Whilst all efforts are made to safeguard emails, The School of Environmental Sciences cannot guarantee that attachments are virus free or compatible with your systems and does not accept liability in respect of viruses or computer problems experienced.

From: Stephen H Schneider To: Paul Gross Cc: Mark B Boslough; [email protected]; Thomas Crowley; Dr. Krishna AchutaRao; Myles Allen; Natalia Andronova; Tim C Atkinson; Rick Anthes; Caspar Ammann; David C. Bader; Tim Barnett; Eric Barron; Graham" "Bench; Pat Berge; George Boer; Celine J. W. Bonfils; James A." "Bono; James Boyle; Ray Bradley; Robin Bravender; Keith Briffa; Wolfgang Brueggemann; Lisa Butler; Ken Caldeira; Peter Caldwell; Dan Cayan; Peter U. Clark; Amy Clement; Nancy Cole; William Collins; Tina Conrad; Curtis Covey; birte dar; Davies Trevor Prof; Jay Davis; Tomas Diaz De La Rubia; Andrew Dessler; Michael" "Dettinger; Phil Duffy; Paul J." "Ehlenbach; Kerry Emanuel; James Estes; Veronika" "Eyring; David Fahey; Chris Field; Peter Foukal; Melissa Free; Julio Friedmann; Bill Fulkerson; Inez Fung; Jeff Garberson; PETER GENT; Nathan Gillett; peter gleckler; Bill Goldstein; Hal Graboske; Tom Guilderson; Leopold Haimberger; Alex Hall; James Hansen; harvey; Klaus Hasselmann; Susan Joy Hassol; Gabi Hegerl; Isaac Held; Bob Hirschfeld; Jeremy Hobbs; Dr. Elisabeth A. Holland; Greg Holland; Brian Hoskins; mhughes; James Hurrell; Ken Jackson; c jakob; Gardar Johannesson; Philip D. Jones; Helen Kang; Thomas R Karl; David Karoly; Jeffrey Kiehl; Steve Klein; Knutti Reto; John Lanzante; [email protected]; Ron Lehman; John lewis; Steven A. "Lloyd (GSFC-610.2)[R S INFORMATION SYSTEMS INC]"; Jane Long; Janice Lough; mann; [email protected]; Linda Mearns; carl mears; Jerry Meehl; Jerry Melillo; George Miller; Norman Miller; Art Mirin; John FB" "Mitchell; Phil Mote; Neville Nicholls; Gerald R. North; Astrid E.J. Ogilvie; Stephanie Ohshita; Tim Osborn; Stu" "Ostro; j palutikof; Joyce Penner; Thomas C Peterson; Tom Phillips; David Pierce; [email protected]; V. Ramaswamy; Veerabhadran" "Ramanathan; Sarah Raper; Phil Rasch; Kathryn Rauhut; Doug Rotman; Terry L. Root; Robert "Sausen, DLR"; jsanter; John Schellnhuber; David Schimel; Michael Schlesinger; Gavin Schmidt; Christina L. Schomer; Lynda Seaver; Dian J. Seidel; Ted Sheppard; s sherwood; Adrian Simmons; socci anthony; brian soden; Susan Solomon; Ken Sperber; Anne Stark; Thomas Stocker; Ronald J Stouffer; [email protected]; Karl Taylor; claudia tebaldi; Joao P" "Teixeira; Simon Tett; Thomas A." "Tombrello; David Thompson; Lonnie Thompson; ELLEN THOMPSON; Peter" "Thorne; Mike Wallace; Bud Ward; David "Warrilow (GA)"; Warren Washington; Andrew Weaver; Michael Wehner; Frank Wentz; Penny" "Whetton; Dean N. Williams; Gordon Yano; Francis W. Zwiers; Erik M" "Conway; Sanjay Khanna; Graham Cogley; Jeffrey Kargel; W. Crawford Elliott; John Weyant; Anthony Janetos; Alison" "Sowden; Vernon Squire; Eric Garen; Peter Cross; Charles Zeller; Ian Murdock; Victoria A Arroyo; Rashida Leonard; Stephanie Fontenoy; John Collee; Sarah-jane Potts; Greg Dutton; Richard B. Rood; Brien Seeley; Mark Seeley; Oliver Morton; Cheryl H; Richard" "Somerville; Martin Heimann; Don Kennedy; Heidi Cullen; Shari Bell; Rebecca Bratspies; Pete Myers; Michael Oppenheimer; Tom Wigley; Naomi Oreskes; Boslough; Ben Santer Subject: Civility versus the Top Ten List of denialist misconduct Date: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 4:28:49 AM

Of course you are right Paul, civility is the best policy for progress between science and civil society-- would that it were so in the real world these days! I wish you'd share your thoughtful and civil skeptics with us--I love open and honest debates--wish it happened more than ten percent of the time for me these days, if that. Mark wants ugly war stories? Let me just report then that when a recent law enforcement agency asked me to send my recent collection of really ugly hate emails--that took several files--they were bounced back by the spam detector of that agency as containing "too many expletives". Had to get around the filters to get the officers what they wanted. That is my experience most of the time--not civility and honest dissent with legitimate arguments, but deliberate distortion, hostility, ignorance, ideology, xenophobia, special interest pandering, and deep fear and anger. Indeed, civility would be such a nice thing to return to--like it was in the 1970s, even in congress or the Nixon White House, when we could have a civil dialogue on climate change, with lots of disagreements, with all parties and senators and members from all districts, including coal districts, having a real set of discussions and no ad hominem--I tell several such stories in Science as a Contact Sport. It really happened! Now--just try it. ....Try to have an intelligent, let alone civil, dialogue with Inhofe or Sensenbrenner or Barton or Palin or Beck or Limbaugh or Monckton or George Will or Rohrbacher or the Superfreaks...Wish it were so.

So yes, we should all keep looking for civil discourse, it is the only way we'll get science back into the right place for our unwritten social contract with societal decision makers: to give them what they need from us--expert risk assessment--so they can do their job for which they were elected--normative risk management. But these days that is so broken by special interest campaign contributions, false media "balance", lies and spin, that I am fearful our social contract is past the Humpty Dumpty stage. But we all should keep trying, please, like Paul pleads, what other reasonable choice is there if civil dialogue and rational discourse is to become the rule again. Cheers anyway, Steve

Stephen H. Schneider Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies, Professor, Department of Biology and Senior Fellow, Woods Institute for the Environment Mailing address: Yang & Yamazaki Environment & Energy Building - MC 4205 473 Via Ortega Ph: 650 725 9978 F: 650 725 4387 Websites: climatechange.net patientfromhell.org

----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Gross" To: "Boslough" , "Ben Santer" Cc: "Mark B Boslough" , "Stephen H Schneider" , [email protected], "Thomas Crowley" , "Dr. Krishna AchutaRao" , "Myles Allen" , "Natalia Andronova" , "Tim C Atkinson" , "Rick Anthes" , "Caspar Ammann" , "David C. Bader" , "Tim Barnett" , "Eric Barron" , "Graham' 'Bench" , "Pat Berge" , "George Boer" , "Celine J. W. Bonfils" , "James A.' 'Bono" , "James Boyle" , "Ray Bradley" , "Robin Bravender" , "Keith Briffa" , "Wolfgang Brueggemann" , "Lisa Butler" , "Ken Caldeira" , "Peter Caldwell" , "Dan Cayan" , "Peter U. Clark" , "Amy Clement" , "Nancy Cole" < >, "William Collins" , "Tina Conrad" , "Curtis Covey" , "birte dar" , "Davies Trevor Prof" , "Jay Davis" , "Tomas Diaz De La Rubia" , "Andrew Dessler" , "Michael' 'Dettinger" , "Phil Duffy" , "Paul J.' 'Ehlenbach" , "Kerry Emanuel" , "James Estes" , "Veronika' 'Eyring" , "David Fahey" , "Chris Field" , "Peter Foukal" < >, "Melissa Free" , "Julio Friedmann" , "Bill Fulkerson" , "Inez Fung" , "Jeff Garberson" , "PETER GENT" , "Nathan Gillett" , "peter gleckler" , "Bill Goldstein" , "Hal Graboske" , "Tom Guilderson" , "Leopold Haimberger" , "Alex Hall" , "James Hansen" , "harvey" , "Klaus Hasselmann" , "Susan Joy Hassol" , "Gabi Hegerl" , "Isaac Held" , "Bob Hirschfeld" , "Jeremy Hobbs" , "Dr. Elisabeth A. Holland" , "Greg Holland" , "Brian Hoskins" , "mhughes" , "James Hurrell" , "Ken Jackson" , "c jakob" , "Gardar Johannesson" , "Philip D. Jones" , "Helen Kang" , "Thomas R Karl" , "David Karoly" , "Jeffrey Kiehl" , "Steve Klein" , "Knutti Reto" , "John Lanzante" , [email protected], "Ron Lehman" , "John lewis" , "Steven A. 'Lloyd (GSFC-610.2)[R S INFORMATION SYSTEMS INC]'" , "Jane Long" , "Janice Lough" , "mann" , [email protected], "Linda Mearns" , "carl mears" , "Jerry Meehl" , "Jerry Melillo" , "George Miller" , "Norman Miller" , "Art Mirin" , "John FB' 'Mitchell" >, "Phil Mote" , "Neville Nicholls" , "Gerald R. North" , "Astrid E.J. Ogilvie" , "Stephanie Ohshita" , "Tim Osborn" , "Stu' 'Ostro" , "j palutikof" , "Joyce Penner" , "Thomas C Peterson" , "Tom Phillips" , "David Pierce" , [email protected], "V. Ramaswamy" , "Veerabhadran' 'Ramanathan" , "Sarah Raper" , "Phil Rasch" , "Kathryn Rauhut" , "Doug Rotman" , "Terry L. Root" , "Robert 'Sausen, DLR'" , "jsanter" , "John Schellnhuber" , "David Schimel" , "Michael Schlesinger" , "Gavin Schmidt" , "Christina L. Schomer" , "Lynda Seaver" , "Dian J. Seidel" , "Ted Sheppard" , "s sherwood" , "Adrian Simmons" , "socci anthony" , "brian soden" , "Susan Solomon" , "Ken Sperber" , "Anne Stark" , "Thomas Stocker" , "Ronald J Stouffer" , [email protected], "Karl Taylor" , "claudia tebaldi" < >, "Joao P' 'Teixeira" , "Simon Tett" , "Thomas A.' 'Tombrello" , "David Thompson" , "Lonnie Thompson" , "ELLEN THOMPSON" , "Peter' 'Thorne" , "Mike Wallace" , "Bud Ward" >, "David 'Warrilow (GA)'" , "Warren Washington" , "Andrew Weaver" , "Michael Wehner" , "Frank Wentz" >, "Penny' 'Whetton" , "Dean N. Williams" , "Gordon Yano" , "Francis W. Zwiers" , "Erik M' 'Conway" , "Sanjay Khanna" "Graham Cogley" , "Jeffrey Kargel" , "W. Crawford Elliott" , "John Weyant" , "Anthony Janetos" , "Alison' 'Sowden" < >, "Vernon Squire" , "Eric Garen" , "Peter Cross" "Charles Zeller" < >, "Ian Murdock" < , "Victoria A Arroyo" , "Rashida Leonard" , "Stephanie Fontenoy" , "John Collee" , "Sarah- jane Potts" "Greg Dutton" , "Richard B. Rood" , "Brien Seeley" "Mark Seeley" , "Oliver Morton" "Cheryl_H" , "Richard' 'Somerville" , "Martin Heimann" , "Don Kennedy" , "Heidi Cullen" , "Shari Bell" "Rebecca Bratspies" , "Pete Myers" "Michael Oppenheimer" , "Tom Wigley" , "Naomi Oreskes" Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 3:19:01 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific Subject: RE: Top Ten List of denialist misconduct

Mark,

Only have a second here...I'm working our morning newscast today and sending this during a commercial. As I've said in the past, we really need to keep the topics civil, succinct, and mature. Some of your points are very inflammatory, and will only serve to fuel the flames. I gave a talk about this subject just a couple of weeks ago and, despite there being some conservatives in the audience, there wasn't a single negative comment or question. There's no question that a combination of my being highly respected here in town plus my taking each skeptics' point one-by-one and calmly proving them wrong with undebateable science significantly impacted my audience.

Be careful about slinging mud...you know what happens when "it" hits the fan. Please try to tone things down and not be so accusatory. Paul

-----Original Message----- From: Boslough [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sun 4/11/2010 11:45 PM To: Ben Santer Cc: Boslough, Mark B; Stephen H Schneider; [email protected]; Thomas Crowley; Dr. Krishna AchutaRao; Myles Allen; Natalia Andronova; Tim C Atkinson; Rick Anthes; Caspar Ammann; David C. Bader; Tim Barnett; Eric Barron; Graham' 'Bench; Pat Berge; George Boer; Celine J. W. Bonfils; James A.' 'Bono; James Boyle; Ray Bradley; Robin Bravender; Keith Briffa; Wolfgang Brueggemann; Lisa Butler; Ken Caldeira; Peter Caldwell; Dan Cayan; Peter U. Clark; Amy Clement; Nancy Cole; William Collins; Tina Conrad; Curtis Covey; birte dar; Davies Trevor Prof; Jay Davis; Tomas Diaz De La Rubia; Andrew Dessler; Michael' 'Dettinger; Phil Duffy; Paul J.' 'Ehlenbach; Kerry Emanuel; James Estes; Veronika' 'Eyring; David Fahey; Chris Field; Peter Foukal; Melissa Free; Julio Friedmann; Bill Fulkerson; Inez Fung; Jeff Garberson; PETER GENT; Nathan Gillett; peter gleckler; Bill Goldstein; Hal Graboske; Paul Gross; Tom Guilderson; Leopold Haimberger; Alex Hall; James Hansen; harvey; Klaus Hasselmann; Susan Joy Hassol; Gabi Hegerl; Isaac Held; Bob Hirschfeld; Jeremy Hobbs; Dr. Elisabeth A. Holland; Greg Holland; Brian Hoskins; mhughes; James Hurrell; Ken Jackson; c jakob; Gardar Johannesson; Philip D. Jones; Helen Kang; Thomas R Karl; David Karoly; Jeffrey Kiehl; Steve Klein; Knutti Reto; John Lanzante; [email protected]; Ron Lehman; John lewis; Steven A. 'Lloyd (GSFC-610.2)[R S INFORMATION SYSTEMS INC]'; Jane Long; Janice Lough; mann; [email protected]; Linda Mearns; carl mears; Jerry Meehl; Jerry Melillo; George Miller; Norman Miller; Art Mirin; John FB' 'Mitchell; Phil Mote; Neville Nicholls; Gerald R. North; Astrid E.J. Ogilvie; Stephanie Ohshita; Tim Osborn; Stu' 'Ostro; j palutikof; Joyce Penner; Thomas C Peterson; Tom Phillips; David Pierce; [email protected]; V. Ramaswamy; Veerabhadran' 'Ramanathan; Sarah Raper; Phil Rasch; Kathryn Rauhut; Doug Rotman; Terry L. Root; Robert 'Sausen, DLR'; jsanter; John Schellnhuber; David Schimel; Michael Schlesinger; Gavin Schmidt; Christina L. Schomer; Lynda Seaver; Dian J. Seidel; Ted Sheppard; s sherwood; Adrian Simmons; socci anthony; brian soden; Susan Solomon; Ken Sperber; Anne Stark; Thomas Stocker; Ronald J Stouffer; [email protected]; Karl Taylor; claudia tebaldi; Joao P' 'Teixeira; Simon Tett; Thomas A.' 'Tombrello; David Thompson; Lonnie Thompson; ELLEN THOMPSON; Peter' 'Thorne; Mike Wallace; Bud Ward; David 'Warrilow (GA)'; Warren Washington; Andrew Weaver; Michael Wehner; Frank Wentz; Penny' 'Whetton; Dean N. Williams; Gordon Yano; Francis W. Zwiers; Erik M' 'Conway; Sanjay Khanna; Graham Cogley; Jeffrey Kargel; W. Crawford Elliott; John Weyant; Anthony Janetos; Alison' 'Sowden; Vernon Squire; Eric Garen; Peter Cross; Charles Zeller; Ian Murdock; Victoria A Arroyo; Rashida Leonard; Stephanie Fontenoy; John Collee; Sarah-jane Potts; Greg Dutton; Richard B. Rood; Brien Seeley; Mark Seeley; Oliver Morton; Cheryl_H; Richard' 'Somerville; Martin Heimann; Don Kennedy; Heidi Cullen; Shari Bell; Rebecca Bratspies; Pete Myers; Michael Oppenheimer; Tom Wigley; Naomi Oreskes Subject: Re: Top Ten List of denialist misconduct

Thanks everybody, for your responses to my request for ideas for a Top Ten List. I'm giving my presentation this week and--like you--I have a day job that takes most of my time so I haven't spent as much time on this as I would have liked. My tentative Top Ten List (of denialist mistakes, misrepresentation, misinformation, and misconduct) is attached. I could use a little help with number two "Bully-gate: Threats of physical violence and other retaliation against scientsts". If anyone would like to share a particularly nasty email message you've gotten, I'd be happy to show it as an example.

I had some very good suggestions for the Top Ten List, but I excluded the ones that were technical in nature. This list is intended to appeal to a non-technical audience, and is intended to appeal to the gut, the heart, and the sense of fair play that most people have. I have until Wednesday so I might tweak the list between now and then. The main point I want to make with this list is the incredible double-standard applied by the media. If a climate scientist had ever done anything close to anything on this list, it would have been front page news. Denialists get a free pass every time.

Regards,

Mark

10.Climategate-gate: Theft of email messages from working scientists. 9. Bully-gate: Threats of physical violence and other retaliation against researchers. 8. Fool-gate: Denialist blogger falls for fake news story, fails to print a retraction. 7. Ghoul-gate: Readers of fake story celebrate the supposed death of "Prof. Schmidt". 6. Chicken-gate: Big talk, empty claims, and cowardly unwillingness to risk money. 5. Chicken-and-egg-gate: Pretending CO2 can't cause warming if temperature leads CO2. 4. Imperson-gate: Non-scientists impersonating scientists and inflating their credentials. 3. 1998-gate: Claiming that its been cooling since 1998. 2. Fabri-gate: Pathological relabeling, removing, and making up of data 1. Regurgi-gate: Plagiarism in the Wegman report, the "denialist Bible". From: Paul Gross To: Boslough; Ben Santer Cc: Boslough, Mark B; Stephen H Schneider; [email protected]; Thomas Crowley; Dr. Krishna AchutaRao; Myles Allen; Natalia Andronova; Tim C Atkinson; Rick Anthes; Caspar Ammann; David C. Bader; Tim Barnett; Eric Barron; Graham" "Bench; Pat Berge; George Boer; Celine J. W. Bonfils; James A." "Bono; James Boyle; Ray Bradley; Robin Bravender; Keith Briffa; Wolfgang Brueggemann; Lisa Butler; Ken Caldeira; Peter Caldwell; Dan Cayan; Peter U. Clark; Amy Clement; Nancy Cole; William Collins; Tina Conrad; Curtis Covey; birte dar; Davies Trevor Prof; Jay Davis; Tomas Diaz De La Rubia; Andrew Dessler; Michael" "Dettinger; Phil Duffy; Paul J." "Ehlenbach; Kerry Emanuel; James Estes; Veronika" "Eyring; David Fahey; Chris Field; Peter Foukal; Melissa Free; Julio Friedmann; Bill Fulkerson; Inez Fung; Jeff Garberson; PETER GENT; Nathan Gillett; peter gleckler; Bill Goldstein; Hal Graboske; Tom Guilderson; Leopold Haimberger; Alex Hall; James Hansen; harvey; Klaus Hasselmann; Susan Joy Hassol; Gabi Hegerl; Isaac Held; Bob Hirschfeld; Jeremy Hobbs; Dr. Elisabeth A. Holland; Greg Holland; Brian Hoskins; mhughes; James Hurrell; Ken Jackson; c jakob; Gardar Johannesson; Philip D. Jones; Helen Kang; Thomas R Karl; David Karoly; Jeffrey Kiehl; Steve Klein; Knutti Reto; John Lanzante; [email protected]; Ron Lehman; John lewis; Steven A. "Lloyd (GSFC-610.2)[R S INFORMATION SYSTEMS INC]"; Jane Long; Janice Lough; mann; [email protected]; Linda Mearns; carl mears; Jerry Meehl; Jerry Melillo; George Miller; Norman Miller; Art Mirin; John FB" "Mitchell; Phil Mote; Neville Nicholls; Gerald R. North; Astrid E.J. Ogilvie; Stephanie Ohshita; Tim Osborn; Stu" "Ostro; j palutikof; Joyce Penner; Thomas C Peterson; Tom Phillips; David Pierce; [email protected]; V. Ramaswamy; Veerabhadran" "Ramanathan; Sarah Raper; Phil Rasch; Kathryn Rauhut; Doug Rotman; Terry L. Root; Robert "Sausen, DLR"; jsanter; John Schellnhuber; David Schimel; Michael Schlesinger; Gavin Schmidt; Christina L. Schomer; Lynda Seaver; Dian J. Seidel; Ted Sheppard; s sherwood; Adrian Simmons; socci anthony; brian soden; Susan Solomon; Ken Sperber; Anne Stark; Thomas Stocker; Ronald J Stouffer; [email protected]; Karl Taylor; claudia tebaldi; Joao P" "Teixeira; Simon Tett; Thomas A." "Tombrello; David Thompson; Lonnie Thompson; ELLEN THOMPSON; Peter" "Thorne; Mike Wallace; Bud Ward; David "Warrilow (GA)"; Warren Washington; Andrew Weaver; Michael Wehner; Frank Wentz; Penny" "Whetton; Dean N. Williams; Gordon Yano; Francis W. Zwiers; Erik M" "Conway; Sanjay Khanna; Graham Cogley; Jeffrey Kargel; W. Crawford Elliott; John Weyant; Anthony Janetos; Alison" "Sowden; Vernon Squire; Eric Garen; Peter Cross; Charles Zeller; Ian Murdock; Victoria A Arroyo; Rashida Leonard; Stephanie Fontenoy; John Collee; Sarah-jane Potts; Greg Dutton; Richard B. Rood; Brien Seeley; Mark Seeley; Oliver Morton; Cheryl H; Richard" "Somerville; Martin Heimann; Don Kennedy; Heidi Cullen; Shari Bell; Rebecca Bratspies; Pete Myers; Michael Oppenheimer; Tom Wigley; Naomi Oreskes Subject: RE: Top Ten List of denialist misconduct Date: Monday, April 12, 2010 5:20:04 AM

Mark,

Be careful about slinging mud...you know what happens when "it" hits the fan. Please try to tone things down and not be so accusatory.

Paul

Regards,

Mark

10.Climategate-gate: Theft of email messages from working scientists. 9. Bully-gate: Threats of physical violence and other retaliation against researchers. 8. Fool-gate: Denialist blogger falls for fake news story, fails to print a retraction. 7. Ghoul-gate: Readers of fake story celebrate the supposed death of "Prof. Schmidt". 6. Chicken-gate: Big talk, empty claims, and cowardly unwillingness to risk money. 5. Chicken-and-egg-gate: Pretending CO2 can't cause warming if temperature leads CO2. 4. Imperson-gate: Non-scientists impersonating scientists and inflating their credentials. 3. 1998-gate: Claiming that its been cooling since 1998. 2. Fabri-gate: Pathological relabeling, removing, and making up of data 1. Regurgi-gate: Plagiarism in the Wegman report, the "denialist Bible". From: Boslough To: Ben Santer Cc: Boslough, Mark B; Stephen H Schneider; [email protected]; Thomas Crowley; Dr. Krishna AchutaRao; Myles Allen; Natalia Andronova; Tim C Atkinson; Rick Anthes; Caspar Ammann; David C. Bader; Tim Barnett; Eric Barron; Graham" "Bench; Pat Berge; George Boer; Celine J. W. Bonfils; James A." "Bono; James Boyle; Ray Bradley; Robin Bravender; Keith Briffa; Wolfgang Brueggemann; Lisa Butler; Ken Caldeira; Peter Caldwell; Dan Cayan; Peter U. Clark; Amy Clement; Nancy Cole; William Collins; Tina Conrad; Curtis Covey; birte dar; Davies Trevor Prof; Jay Davis; Tomas Diaz De La Rubia; Andrew Dessler; Michael" "Dettinger; Phil Duffy; Paul J." "Ehlenbach; Kerry Emanuel; James Estes; Veronika" "Eyring; David Fahey; Chris Field; Peter Foukal; Melissa Free; Julio Friedmann; Bill Fulkerson; Inez Fung; Jeff Garberson; PETER GENT; Nathan Gillett; peter gleckler; Bill Goldstein; Hal Graboske; Paul Gross; Tom Guilderson; Leopold Haimberger; Alex Hall; James Hansen; harvey; Klaus Hasselmann; Susan Joy Hassol; Gabi Hegerl; Isaac Held; Bob Hirschfeld; Jeremy Hobbs; Dr. Elisabeth A. Holland; Greg Holland; Brian Hoskins; mhughes; James Hurrell; Ken Jackson; c jakob; Gardar Johannesson; Philip D. Jones; Helen Kang; Thomas R Karl; David Karoly; Jeffrey Kiehl; Steve Klein; Knutti Reto; John Lanzante; [email protected]; Ron Lehman; John lewis; Steven A. "Lloyd (GSFC-610.2)[R S INFORMATION SYSTEMS INC]"; Jane Long; Janice Lough; mann; [email protected]; Linda Mearns; carl mears; Jerry Meehl; Jerry Melillo; George Miller; Norman Miller; Art Mirin; John FB" "Mitchell; Phil Mote; Neville Nicholls; Gerald R. North; Astrid E.J. Ogilvie; Stephanie Ohshita; Tim Osborn; Stu" "Ostro; j palutikof; Joyce Penner; Thomas C Peterson; Tom Phillips; David Pierce; [email protected]; V. Ramaswamy; Veerabhadran" "Ramanathan; Sarah Raper; Phil Rasch; Kathryn Rauhut; Doug Rotman; Terry L. Root; Robert "Sausen, DLR"; jsanter; John Schellnhuber; David Schimel; Michael Schlesinger; Gavin Schmidt; Christina L. Schomer; Lynda Seaver; Dian J. Seidel; Ted Sheppard; s sherwood; Adrian Simmons; socci anthony; brian soden; Susan Solomon; Ken Sperber; Anne Stark; Thomas Stocker; Ronald J Stouffer; [email protected]; Karl Taylor; claudia tebaldi; Joao P" "Teixeira; Simon Tett; Thomas A." "Tombrello; David Thompson; Lonnie Thompson; ELLEN THOMPSON; Peter" "Thorne; Mike Wallace; Bud Ward; David "Warrilow (GA)"; Warren Washington; Andrew Weaver; Michael Wehner; Frank Wentz; Penny" "Whetton; Dean N. Williams; Gordon Yano; Francis W. Zwiers; Erik M" "Conway; Sanjay Khanna; Graham Cogley; Jeffrey Kargel; W. Crawford Elliott; John Weyant; Anthony Janetos; Alison" "Sowden; Vernon Squire; Eric Garen; Peter Cross; Charles Zeller; Ian Murdock; Victoria A Arroyo; Rashida Leonard; Stephanie Fontenoy; John Collee; Sarah-jane Potts; Greg Dutton; Richard B. Rood; Brien Seeley; Mark Seeley; Oliver Morton; Cheryl H; Richard" "Somerville; Martin Heimann; Don Kennedy; Heidi Cullen; Shari Bell; Rebecca Bratspies; Pete Myers; Michael Oppenheimer; Tom Wigley; Naomi Oreskes Subject: Re: Top Ten List of denialist misconduct Date: Sunday, April 11, 2010 10:45:54 PM

Regards,

Mark

Andy - While I'm at it, here's my up-to-the-minute CV. Thanks! - John CURRICULUMVITAE JOHNWILLIAMNIELSENǦGAMMON Ƭ ͵ͳͷͲǡǡ͹͹ͺͶ͵Ǧ͵ͳͷͲ ƬǡͳͲͳʹ Ǧ̷Ǥ ͻ͹ͻǦͺ͸ʹǦʹʹͶͺ lastupdatedMarch12,2010 POSITIONSHELD ǡƬǡʹͲͲͲǦ ǡʹͲͲͲǦ ǡ ǡ ƬǡʹͲͲͺǦʹͲͲͻ ǡ ǡʹͲͲ͵ǦͲ͹ ǡƬ ǡͳͻͻ͹Ǧͻͺ ǡƬǡͳͻͻ͸ǦͲͲ ǡƬǡͳͻͻͳǦͻ͸ ǡǡͳͻͻͲǦͻͳ PROFESSIONALINTERESTS Ǧ EDUCATION ǤǤ ǡǡͳͻͻͲ ȈǣǦ ǤǤ ǡǡͳͻͺ͹ Ȉǣ ǤǤ ǡ ǡͳͻͺͶ

John W. Nielsen-Gammon page 1 of 27 AWARDSANDHONORS ǡ ǡʹͲͲ͹ ̵ǡ ǡͳͻͻ͹ ǡƬ ǡͳͻͻ͸ ǡ Ȁ ǡͳͻͻͷ ǡ ǡ ǡͳͻͻͷ ǡ ǡͳͻͺͻǦͻͳ EXTERNALSUPPORT UnderDevelopment Submitted ǲ Ǧǳǡͳͺǡ ̈́ͳͶͲǡͲͲͲǡ ǡǤǡ ǡǤ Ǥ ǲ ǳǡʹͶǡ̈́ͳʹͲǡͲͲͲǡ ǡǤǡǤ Ǥǡ ͓ͳͲǦͲ͸ͷʹǤ Pending Current ǲ ǳǡ ʹͲͲͻǡͻǡ ̈́ʹ͵ǡͲͲͲǡ ȋ ȌǤ ǲǦ ǳǡʹͲͲͺǡͶͺ ǡ̈́ͶͲͲǡͲͲͲǡ Ǥ ǲ ǳǡʹͲͲ͹ǡ͵ǡ̈́Ͷ͹ǡͲͲͲǡ ȋ Ȍǡ Ͷͻ͹ʹͷͳǦ Ͳ͵ͲͲͳǤ Previous ǲ ǳǡ ʹͲͲͺǡͳͷǡ ̈́ͳ͸ͲǡͲͲͲǡ ǡ Ǧͻ͸ǦʹͲͲͺǦǤ ǲ ǳǡ ʹͲͲͺǡͳ͵ǡ̈́ͶͲǡͲͲͲǡ ǡ ǦͳͲ͹ǦʹͲͲͺǦǤ ǲ ȋ Ȍ ǳǡʹͲͲͺǡͳ͸ǡ̈́ͳͺͷǡͲͲͲǡ ǤͷͺʹǦͷǦ͸Ͷͷͻ͵Ǧ ͲͺǦʹͶǤ

John W. Nielsen-Gammon page 2 of 27 ǲǡ ǤǤǳǡʹͲͲͷǡ ͵ǡ̈́ͺͲͲǡͲͲͲǡ ǡ ͲͷͶ͵ͳͳͳʹͳǡǤǡǤ Ǥ ǲ ǳǡʹͲͲ͹ǡͳͳǡ̈́ʹͳʹǡͲͲͲǡ ǡͷͺʹǦͷǦ͸Ͷͷͻ͵Ǧ Ͳ͹ǦʹͲǤ ǲ ǳǡʹͲͲ͹ǡͺǡ̈́͹ͷǡͲͲͲǡ ǡ ǦͺͶǦʹͲͲ͹ǦǤ ǲ ǳǡʹͲͲ͹ǡͶǡ ̈́͵ͲǡͲͲͲǡǡͷͺʹǦͷǦ͸Ͷͷͻ͵Ǧ Ͳ͹ǦʹͳǤ ǲ ͳͻ ǳǡʹͲͲ͸ǡͳʹǡ̈́ʹͷͺǡͲͲͲǡ ǡͷͺʹǦͷǦ͸ͳͷͻ͵Ǧ Ͳ͸ǦͳͻǤ ǲ ǳǡ ʹͲͲ͸ǡʹͶǡ̈́ͳ͹ǡͲͲͲǡ ǡͲͷ͹͵Ͳ͵ͻǤ ǲ ǳǡ ʹͲͲͷǡͳǤ͵ǡ̈́ͻͻǡͲͲͲǡ ǡʹͲͲͷǦͶͺ͵ǦͲʹͺǡǤǡǤ Ǥ ǲ ǳǡ ʹͲͲͷǡͳǤ͵ǡ̈́͸ͲǡͲͲͲǡ ǡʹͲͲͷǦͶͺ͵ǦͷͷͻǡǤǡǤ Ǥ ǲǦ Ǧ ǳǡʹͲͲͷǡͳͳǤͷǡ ̈́ͳͶͲǡͲͲͲǡ ǡ ǦͶͷǦǦʹͲͲͷǦǤ ǲǦǳǡ ʹͲͲͷǡʹͳǡ ̈́ͻͶǡͲͲͲǡȋǤ Ǥ ʹͲͲ͸ȌǡͷͺʹǦͷǦ ͹ͲͺͲ͹ǦͲͲͳͷǤ ǲ ǳǡ ʹͲͲͷǡ͵ ǡ̈́͸ͲǡͲͲͲǡ ǡ Ǥǡ ǡͷͺʹǦͷǦ͸Ͷͷͻ͵Ǧ ͲͷǦͲ͹Ǥ ǲǦ ǳǡ ʹͲͲͷǡ͵ǡ̈́ʹ͹ǡͲͲͲǡ ǡ Ǥǡ ǡͷͺʹǦͷǦ͸Ͷͷͻ͵Ǧ ͲͷǦͲ͸Ǥ ǲǦ ͺǦ ǳǡ ʹͲͲͶǡͳǤͳǡ̈́͵͵ͲǡͲͲͲǡȀǡ ǦͶͷǦǦǦʹͲͲͶǦʹǤ ǲ ǳǡʹͲͲͷǡ͹ǡ̈́ͻͲǡͲͲͲǡ Ȁ ǡR08- 04/05-A&M-1. ǲ ǡ ǳǡʹͲͲ͵ǡʹǤ͵ǡ̈́ͶͶͲǡͲͲͲǡ ǡǤ ǡǤ ǡǦͲ͵ʹͳͲͷʹǤ ǲǳǡ ʹͲͲͷǡʹǡ̈́ʹ͵ǡͲͲͲǡ ̶ Ǧ ̶ǡʹͲͲʹǡ͵ǡ ̈́ͳǡͲͲͲǡͲͲͲǡ Ǥ ǲ ȂʹǳǡʹͲͲͶǡͳǡ ̈́͵͵ǡͲͲͲǡ ǡͲ͸ͶʹͲ͵ͻǤ ǲ ͺǦ ǳǡ ʹͲͲͶǡͷǡ

John W. Nielsen-Gammon page 3 of 27 ̈́Ͷ͹ǡͲͲͲǡȀ ǡ ǦͳʹǦʹͲͲͷǦͺ ǦͳǤ ǲ ǡǡǳǡʹͲͲ͵ǡͳǡ ̈́ͳʹͲǡͲͲͲǡ Ȁ Ǥ ǲ ǳǡ ʹͲͲ͵ǡͳǡ̈́͵ͷǡͲͲͲǡ ǡͲͺ͵ͲͲ͵ͻǤ ǲ ȋȌǳǡ ʹͲͲ͵ǡͳǤͷǡ̈́ͳ͹ͺǡͲͲͲǡ Ǥ ̶ȋʹͲͲͳȌ̶ǡ ʹͲͲʹǡǡ̈́ͺǡͲͲͲǡ ǡͲ͵Ǧ͵ͺ͸͸͸Ǥ ǲǳǡ ʹͲͲʹȋ ʹͲͲ͵ȌǡͳǤͷǡ̈́͸ͶǡͲͲͲǡ Ǥ ǲ ȋͷʹͲͲͲ ȌǳǡʹͲͲͳǡǡ̈́͵ͲͺǡͲͲͲǡ Ǥ ̶Ǧ ̶ǡʹͲͲͳǡͶǡ̈́͵ͺͺǡͲͲͲǡ ǡǦͲͲͺͻͻͲ͸Ǥ ̶ ̶ǡʹͲͲͳǡ͵Ǥ͵ ǡ̈́͵ͷͺǡͲͲͲǡ ǤǤǡ ǡͳ͹ͳͲͳͳǤ ̶ ̶ǡʹͲͲͲǡʹͲǡ̈́ͷ͸ǡͲͲͲǡ Ǥ ̶ ̶ǡͳͻͻͷǡǡ̈́ͷͲͲǡͲͲͲǡ ǡ Ǧͻͷͷ͵ʹͺͶǤ ̶ Ǧ̶ǡʹͲͲͲǡǡ̈́ͳͲǡͲͲͲǡ Ȁ ǡ ǡͲͳǦʹͶʹ͵ͺǤ ̶ ǦʹͲͲͲ̶ǡ ʹͲͲͳǡǡ̈́͹ͳǡͲͲͲǡ Ǥ ̶ ǦʹͲͲͲǡʹͲͲͲǡǡ ̈́ͷͻǡͲͲͲǡ Ǥ ̶ ̶ȋǤ Ǥǣ ǤǤ Ȍǡͳͻͻͺǡǡ̈́ͳ͵ͷǡͲͲͲǡ Ǥ ̶ Ǧ̶ǡͳͻͻ͸ǡǡ̈́ʹͲ͹ǡͲͲͲǡ ǡǦͻͷʹͳ͵ͺ͵Ǥ ̶ ̶ȋǤ ǤǣǤ ǤȌǡͳͻͻͶǡǡ̈́ͳʹͷǡͲͲͲǡ Ǥ ̶ ̶ȋǤ ǤǣǤ ǤȌǡͳͻͻͶǡǡ̈́Ͷ͹ǡͲͲͲǡ Ǥ ̶ Ǧ ̶ǡͳͻͻ͵ǡǡ̈́ͳͳǡͲͲͲǡ ǡ Ǥ ̶̶ȋǤǤ ǤȌǡ ͳͻͻ͵ǡǡ̈́͸ͲǡͲͲͲǡ ǡǦͻ͵ͷʹ͸ͲͳǤ ̶ Ǧ ̶ǡͳͻͻ͵ǡǡ̈́ͳͳǡͲͲͲǡ ǡ Ǥ ̶ Ǧ̶ǡͳͻͻ͵ǡǡ̈́ͳͶʹǡͲͲͲǡ ǡǦͻʹͳͺ͵ͳ͸Ǥ ̶Ǧʹ͸Ǧʹ͹ǡͳͻͻʹ̶ǡͳͻͻʹǡǡ

John W. Nielsen-Gammon page 4 of 27 ̈́ͶǡͲͲͲǡǡ ǡ ͻ͵ͳͷǤ INTERNALCOMPETITIVESUPPORT ǲͳͷͳǳǡͳͻͻͺǡǡ̈́͵ǡͲͲͲǡ PROFESSIONALANDSERVICEACTIVITIES (leadershipactivitiesinboldface) DepartmentofAtmosphericSciences ǡǡͳͻͻ͸Ǧ Chair,2003Ǧ05;2008Ǧ09;2010Ǧpresent ǡͳͻͻͷǦ ǡʹͲͲͺǦ ǡʹͲͲͺ ǡʹͲͲ͹ Radar/MesoscaleFacultySearchCommittee,Chair,2007Ǧ2008 ǡǡʹͲͲͷǦʹͲͲ͹ ǡǡʹͲͲͷǦʹͲͲ͹ ǡǡʹͲͲͶǦʹͲͲ͸ ǡǡʹͲͲͷǦʹͲͲ͸ ǡǡʹͲͲͳǦͲͷ Ǧ ǡʹͲͲʹǦͲ͵ Chair,2003Ǧ05 ǡʹͲͲͷǦͲ͹ ǡ ǡǡ ͳͻͻͷǦʹͲͲͷ ǡǡʹͲͲ͵ǦͲͶ ǡǡʹͲͲ͵ǦͲͶ ǡǡʹͲͲʹǦͲ͵ ǡǡͳͻͻͺǦͲ͵ Synoptic/MesoscaleFacultySearchCommittee,Chair,1999Ǧ01 ǡǡͳͻͻͻǦͲͳ ǡǡͳͻͻͷǦͻͺ ǡǡͳͻͻ͵Ǧͻ͸ Chair,1993Ǧ96 ǡͳͻͻ͵Ǧͻͷ Chair,1993Ǧ95 ǡǡͳͻͻʹǦͻͷ ǡǡͳͻͻʹǦͻͷ

John W. Nielsen-Gammon page 5 of 27 ǡǡͳͻͻʹǦͻͷ CollegeofGeosciences ȈǡʹͲͲͲǦͲʹǡʹͲͲͻǦ Chair,2001Ǧ02 EnvironmentalStudiesProgram,WaterFocusWorkingGroup,Chair,2008 ǡʹͲͲ͸ǦͲ͹ ǡǡʹͲͲͶǦͲ͸ ǡǡʹͲͲ͵ǦͲ͸ ǡʹͲͲͶǦͲͷ ǡǡʹͲͲ͵ǦͲͷ ǡǡͳͻͻͻǦͲͲ ǡ̶̶ȋǤ ǤȌǡ ͳͻͻͺ ǡǡͳͻͻ͹ ǡǡͳͻͻͷ TexasA&MUniversity ǡ ǡͳͻͻ͹ǦʹͲͲͺǡʹͲͳͲǦ ǡʹͲͳͲ ǡʹͲͲͺǦͲͻ ǡʹͲͲͺǦ ǡ ǡͳͻͻ͹ǡʹͲͲ͸ ǡǡʹͲͲ͵ Ȁ ǡǡʹͲͲʹ ǡǡͳͻͻ͹ǦͲͳ ǡǡ ǡǡʹͲͲͲǦͲͳ Ƭǡǡͳͻͻ͹ǦͲͲ CoǦChair,1998Ǧ00 ȈǦ ǡǡͳͻͻ͹Ǧͻͺ Chair,1997Ǧ98 ǡǡͳͻͻͻ Ȉ ǡǡͳͻͻͻ ǡǡͳͻͻͻ ǡ ǡͳͻͻͷǦͻͻ DeputySpeaker,1997Ǧ98 ExecutiveCommittee,Member,1997Ǧ98 Ȉ ǡǡǡǡʹͲͲͲǦͲͳ

John W. Nielsen-Gammon page 6 of 27 Ȉ ǡ ǡͳͻͻͺǦͻͻ Ȉ ǡǡͳͻͻͺ Ȉǡͳͻͻ͹Ǧͻͺ Ȉ ǡǡͳͻͻͺǦͻͺ ȈǡǡͳͻͻͺǦͻͻ Ȉ ǡǡͳͻͻ͸Ǧͻͺ ȈǡǡͳͻͻͷǦͻͻ Chair,1998Ǧ99 Ȉ ǡǡͳͻͻͺǦͻͻ Ȉ ǡǡͳͻͻ͸ Ȉ ǡǡͳͻͻͷǦͻ͹ Chair,1995Ǧ97 Ȉ ǡǡͳͻͻ͸Ǧͻ͹ Chair,1996Ǧ97 Ǧ ǡǡͳͻͻͷǦͻͻ ǡǡ Ȁǡǡͳͻͻͺ Ǧ ǡǡͳͻͻͺ ʹͲʹͲ Ȉǡ ǡǡǡͳͻͻͺ ǡǡͳͻͻ͹Ǧͻͺ Science,Technology,andYouthSymposium,sessionleader,1995Ǧ97 ExternalandScientific ȋ Ȍ Ȉ ǡǡʹͲͲͲǦ President,2007Ǧpresent Secretary,2003Ǧ2007 ȋȌǡǡͳͻͺͻǦ Ȉ ǡǡʹͲͲͺǦ Ȉ ǡǡʹͲͲ͸Ǧ Chair,2008Ǧpresent ProgramCoǦChair,2008AMSStudentSymposium ProgramCoǦChair,2007AMSStudentSymposium Ȁ ȈǡʹͲͲͺǦ ȈChair,2010 AMS/AGUHeads&ChairsMeeting,coǦconvenor,2008and2010 DraftingCommittee,AMSStatementontheBachelorsDegreein AtmosphericSciences,Chair,2010 Ȉ ǡǡͳͻͻͺǦͲͳ ȋ ȌǡǡʹͲͲͳǦ CoǦConvener,2007FallMeetingSessionA35,TransportandMixing

John W. Nielsen-Gammon page 7 of 27 AffectingAirQualityinCoastalandComplexTerrainUrbanAreas Ȉǡ ǡʹͲͳͲ Ȉǡ ǡʹͲͲͻ ȈǡǡʹͲͲ͹ AASCǦRecognizedStateClimateOffice,Director,2002Ǧpresent Ȉǡ ͳǤ͵ǣ ǡʹͲͲ͹ǦͲͺ Ȉǡǡͳͻͻͳ Ȉǡ ǡʹͲͲͲǦͲʹ Ȁ Ȉǡ ǡʹͲͲ͹Ǧ Ȁ ǦǦ Ȉǡ ǡʹͲͲͻǦ ǡ Ȉ ǡ ǡͳͻͻͷ Ȉ ǡ ǡͳͻͻ͵Ǧͻͷ ǡ Ȉǡ ǡͳͻͻͳǦͻͶ Ȉǡ ͳͻͻͳǦͻ͵ Ȉǡ ǡʹͲͲͻ ǡͳͻͻͳ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡͳͻͺ͸ ǡǡͳͻͻͶǦͻͺǢʹͲͲͲǦͲʹ ChapterEditor,HandbookofWeather,Climate,andWater,1999Ǧ03 Ȉǡ ǡʹͲͲͶǦ Ȉǡ ǡʹͲͲͶ ȈǡǦ ǡʹͲͲͶǦʹͲͲ͸ Ȉǡ ǡʹͲͲͳǦʹͲͲͺ Ȉǡ ǡʹͲͲͳǦʹͲͲͺ Chair,MeteorologicalModelingWorkingGroup,2001Ǧ2008 ǡǡʹͲͲͳǦ Ǧʹ Ȉǡ ǡʹͲͲͶǦͲ͸ Chair,MeteorologicalProcessesCommittee,2004Ǧ06 LeadForecaster,2005Ǧ06 ʹͲͲͲ Ȉǡ ǡͳͻͻͻǦͲͲ

John W. Nielsen-Gammon page 8 of 27 CoǦChair,BoundaryLayerProcessesCommittee,1999Ǧ01 LeadForecaster,2000 Ȉǡ ǡǡ ǡͳͻͻʹǡͳͻͻ͵ Ͷͻ ǡ ǡͳͻͻͺ TexasandFloridaUnderflightsExperiment,LeadForecaster,1998 GenesisofAtlanticLowsExperiment,LeadForecaster,1986 ǣ ǡǡ ǡ ǡ ȋȌǡ ǡ ǡ ǣ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǧ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǧǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡǡ ǡǡ ǡ ǡǡ ǡ Ǥ TEACHING CompleteCourses Ȁͳͷͳ ǤȋͲǦʹȌǤͳǤ Ǧ Ǣ ǡ Ǣ Ǥ 1995(new;2sections),1996(2),1997(2),1998(4;coordinator),2002(2) ȀʹͲͳ Ǥȋ͵ǦͲȌǤ͵Ǥ ǡǡ Ǣ Ǣ Ǣ Ǣ ǢǤ 2000(honors;coǦinstructor),2009(2) ʹͷͳǤȋʹǦʹȌǤ͵Ǥ Ǣ Ǣ Ǣ Ǥ

John W. Nielsen-Gammon page 9 of 27 2003(new,3sections),2004(2),2005(2),2006(2) Ͷ͵ͷ Ǧ Ǥȋ͵ǦͲȌǤ͵Ǥ Ǧ Ǣ Ǣ ǡǤǣ͵͵͸Ǥ 2007 Ͷͷͳ ǤȋʹǦͻȌǤͷǤ Ǣ Ǣ Ǥǣ͵͵͸Ǥ 1999,2000,2001(coǦinstructor) Ͷͷʹ ǤȋʹǦͻȌǤͷǤǦ Ǣ ǡ Ǥ ǣͶͷͳǤ 1991,1993,1994,1995,1996,1997,1998,1999 ͶͷͷȀͶͺͻȀ͸ͺͻ ǤȋʹǦʹȌǤ͵Ǥ ǢǢ Ǥǣ ͵ͲͺǢ͵͵͸ Ǥ 2003(new) Ͷͷ͸ȀͶͺͻ ǤȋͳǦͶȌǤ͵Ǥ Ǣ Ǥ 2005(new),2006,2008. ͶͷͻȀ͸ͷͻ Ǥȋ͵ǦͲȌǤ͵Ǥ Ǣ ǡ Ǣ ǤǣͶͷͳǢ Ǥ 2003(coǦinstructor) ȀͶͺͷ Ǥ Ǥ 1997(1student),1999(2),2001(2),2003(2),2005(5),2006(3) ͸Ͳʹ Ǥȋ͵ǦͲȌǤ͵Ǥ ǢǢǢ Ǣ Ǥ 1993(new),1994 Ȁ͸ͷͺ Ǥȋ͵ǦͲȌǤ͵Ǥ Ǥ Ǧ Ǥ 1992,1995,2000,2004,2007 ͸ͺͷ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ 1992(2students),1993(2),1995(1),1997(2),1998(2),2000(1),2004(1),2005(2), 2006(1),2007(1) OutǦofǦDepartmentGuestLectures

John W. Nielsen-Gammon page 10 of 27 PUBLICATIONS ȗ Ǧ Refereedliterature Ͷ͵Ǥ ǡǤǦǤǡ ǤǡJ.W.NielsenǦGammonǡʹͲͳͲǣǦ ǣǦ ǤGeophys.Res.Lett.ǡ ǡǣͳͲǤͳͲʹͻǣʹͲͳͲ ͲͶ͵Ͳͳ͹Ǥ ͶʹǤȗǡǤǡJ.W.NielsenǦGammonǡʹͲͳͲǣ ǤJ.Climateǡʹ͵ǡͳ͸͸ǦͳͺͺǤ 41.NielsenǦGammon,J.W.,ǤǤ±ǡǤ ǡʹͲͲͻǣ ǫ ǤBull.Amer.Meteor. Soc.,ͻͲǡͳ͸ͻͺǦͳ͹ͲͷǤ ͶͲǤǡǤǤǡǤǤǡǤǤǡǤǡ ǤǤ ǡ Ǥ ǡǤ ǡǤ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǤǡJ.W.NielsenǦGammonǡǤǤ ǡǤǤǡ Ǥ Ǥ ǡǤǡǤ ǤǡʹͲͲͻǣ ȋ Ȍ ȋ ȌǤJ.Geophys.Res.,ͳͳͶǡͲͲ ͳ͵ǡ ǣͳͲǤͳͲʹͻȀʹͲͲͻ ͲͳͳͺͶʹǤ ͵ͻǤǤǡǤǡǤǡǤǡǤ ǡ ǤǦǡǤ ǡǤǡǤǡǤǦ Ǥǡ ǤǡJ.NielsenǦGammonǡǤ ǡǤ ǡ ǤǡǤǡǤ ǡǤ Ǥ ǡǤǡʹͲͲͻǣ ǤǤ ǲ ǳǤJ.Geophys.ResǤǡͳͳͶǡͲͷͳͲͷǡǣͳͲǤͳͲʹͻȀʹͲͲͺ ͲͳͲͻ͵ͺǤ ͵ͺǤȗ ǡǤǤǡJ.W.NielsenǦGammonǡʹͲͲͺǣ Ǥ ǣ ͳͻͻͻǤMon.Wea.RevǤǡͳ͵͸ǡͳ͸ͳʹǦͳ͸ʹͻǤ ͵͹Ǥȗ ǡǤǤǡJ.W.NielsenǦGammonǡʹͲͲͺǣ Ǥ ǣ ǤMon.Wea.RevǤǡ ͳ͵͸ǡͳͷͻ͵Ǧͳ͸ͳͳǤ 36.NielsenǦGammon,J.W.,ȗǤǤ ǡʹͲͲͺǣ Ǥ ǣ ǤMon.Wea. RevǤǡͳ͵͸ǡͳͷͺʹǦͳͷͻʹǤ ͵ͷǤȗ ǡǤǤǡJ.W.NielsenǦGammonǡʹͲͲͺǣ Ǥ ǣǤMon.Wea.RevǤǡͳ͵͸ǡͳͷ͸ͷǦͳͷͺͳǤ 34.NielsenǦGammon,J.W.ǡȗǤǤǡǤ ǤǡǤǡǤǡǤǡǤ ǡǤǡǤǡʹͲͲͺǣǦ ǤJ.Appl.Meteor.ClimatolǤǡͶ͹ǡʹ͹ǦͶ͵Ǥ 33.NielsenǦGammon,J.W.ǡȗǤǤ ǡʹͲͲͺǣ ǤJ.Atmos.Sci.ǡ͸ͷǡͳ͹ʹǦͳͺͺǤ 32.NielsenǦGammon,J.W.,ʹͲͲ͹ǣAnInconvenientTruthǣ Ǥ GeoJournalǡ͹ͲǡʹͳǦʹ͸ǡǣͳͲǤͳͲͲ͹ȀͳͲ͹ͲͺǦͲͲͺǦͻͳʹ͸ǦǤ

John W. Nielsen-Gammon page 11 of 27 ͵ͳǤǤǡǤǡǤǡǤǡǤ ǡ ǤǦǡǤ ǡǤǡǤǡǤǦ Ǥǡ ǤǡJ.NielsenǦGammonǡǤ ǡǤ ǡ ǤǡǤǡǤ ǡǤ Ǥ ǡǤǡʹͲͲ͹ǣ ǤJ.Geophys.ResǤǡͳͳʹǤʹͶͲͺǡ ǣͳͲǤͳͲʹͻȀʹͲͲ͸ ͲͲͺʹʹͻǤ ͵ͲǤǤǡǤǡJ.NielsenǦGammonǡǤǡ ǤǡǤǡǤǡǤǡǤ ǡ ǤǡǤ ǡǤ ǡǤ Ǥ ǡǤǡ ǤǡǤǡʹͲͲ͹ǣ ǤBull.Amer.Meteor.SocǤǡͺͺǡͻͳ͵Ǧ ͻʹͺǡǣͳͲǤͳͳ͹ͷȀǦͺͺǦ͸Ǧͻͳ͵Ǥ 29.NielsenǦGammon,J.W.,ǤǤ ǡǤǤǡǤǤǡǤǡ ʹͲͲ͹ǣ ǣ ǤJ.Geophys.ResǤǡ ͳͳʹǡͲͻͳͳͻǡǣͳͲǤͳͲʹͻȀʹͲͲ͸ ͲͲ͹͸͵͵Ǥ ʹͺǤǡǤǤǡȗǤǡ ǤǡJ.W.NielsenǦGammonǡʹͲͲ͹ǣǦ ǤAtmos.EnvǤǡͶͳǡ͵ͲͺʹǦ͵ͲͻͶǤ ʹ͹Ǥǡ ǤǡǤǡJ.W.NielsenǦGammonǡȗ ǤǡǤǡǤǡȗǤǡʹͲͲ͹ǣ ǤJ.Geophys.ResǤǡͳͳʹǡ ͲͶ͵ͲͶǡǣͳͲǤͳͲʹͻȀʹͲͲ͸ ͲͲ͹ͶʹͻǤ ʹ͸ǤȗǡǤǡ ǤǡJ.W.NielsenǦGammonǡʹͲͲ͸ǣǦ ǦǦǤMon.Wea. RevǤǡͳ͵ͶǡʹͻͷͳǦʹͻ͹ͲǤ ʹͷǤȗǡǤǡ ǤǡJ.W.NielsenǦGammonǡʹͲͲ͸ǣǦ ͷǤGeophys.Res.LetǤǡ͵͵ǡͳʹͺͲͳǡ ǣͳͲǤͳͲʹͻȀʹͲͲ͸ Ͳʹ͸ͳͺ͸Ǥ ʹͶǤȗǡ ǤǡJ.W.NielsenǦGammonǡǤǡʹͲͲ͸ǣ ǤMon.Wea.RevǤǡͳ͵Ͷǡͳ͹ͻ͸ǦͳͺͳͶǤ ʹ͵Ǥǡ ǤǡȗǤǡJ.W.NielsenǦGammonǡʹͲͲ͸ǣ Ǧ ǤWea.ForecastingǡʹͳǡͳͶͻǦͳ͸͸Ǥ 22.NielsenǦGammon,J.W.ǡ ǤǡȗǤǤǡȗǤǡʹͲͲͷǣ ǣ ǤPhys.GeogǤǡʹ͸ǡ͵ͶͲǦ͵͸ͶǤ ʹͳǤȗ ǡ ǤǡǤǡȗ ǤǡJ.NielsenǦGammonǡǤǡʹͲͲͷǣ ȋʹǤͷȌ ǡǤJ.Geophys.ResǤǡͳͳͲǡͳ͸ʹͲ͵ǡ ǣͳͲǤͳͲʹͻȀʹͲͲͷ ͲͲͷͺͲͷǤ ʹͲǤȗǡǤǡ ǤǡJ.W.NielsenǦGammonǡǤǤǡʹͲͲͷǣǦ ǤJ.Geophys.ResǤǡͳͳͲǡͳ͸ͳͲͷǡ ǣͳͲǤͳͲʹͻȀʹͲͲͶ ͲͲͷ͹ͳͺǤ ͳͻǤǡǤǤǡǤ ǤǡJ.W.NielsenǦGammonǡǤǤǡǤǤǡǤ ǤǡǤ ǤǡǤ ǤǡǤǡʹͲͲͷǣ ǤBull. Amer.Meteor.SocǤǡͺ͸ǡ͸ͷ͹Ǧ͸͸ͻǤ ͳͺǤǡǤǤǡ Ǥ ǡJ.NielsenǦGammonǡǤǡȗǤǡȗǤǡȗǤǡ ǤǡǤǡʹͲͲͳǣ ǦǦ ǡǤGeophys.Res.LetǤǡʹͺǡʹͷͻ͹Ǧʹ͸ͲͲǤ 17.NielsenǦGammon,J.W.ǡʹͲͲͳǣ ǤBull.

John W. Nielsen-Gammon page 12 of 27 Amer.Meteor.Soc.ǡͺʹǡͳͳͷͳǦͳͳ͸͹Ǥ ͳ͸ǤȗǡǤǤǡJ.W.NielsenǦGammonǡǤǡʹͲͲͲǣ Ǧ ǤJ.Atmos.Sci.ǡͷ͹ǡ͵ͻͳͺǦ͵ͻ͵ͺǤ 15.NielsenǦGammon,J.W.ǡǤǡʹͲͲͲǣ ǤMon.Wea.RevǤǡͳʹͺǡ͵ͲͲ͹Ǧ͵ͲͳͲǤ 14.NielsenǦGammon,J.W.ǡǤǤ ǡͳͻͻͻǣ̶ Ǧ Ǧ ̶ǤMon.Wea.RevǤǡͳʹ͹ǡʹʹʹ͹Ǧʹʹ͵ͳǤ ͳ͵Ǥȗ ǡǤǤǡJ.W.NielsenǦGammonǡͳͻͻͺǣǦ ǤMon.Wea.RevǤǡͳʹ͸ǡʹͻ͹ʹǦʹͻͻͲǤ ͳʹǤǡǤǤǡJ.W.NielsenǦGammonǡͳͻͻͺǣ ǤMon.Wea.RevǤǡͳʹ͸ǡʹͷͷͷǦʹͷ͹ͻǤ 11.NielsenǦGammon,J.W.ǡǤ ǤǡǤǤ ǡǤǡǤǤǡǤ ǡ Ǥ ǡǤǤǡǤǡǤ Ǥ ǡͳͻͻ͸ǣƬ ̵ Ǧ̵ ǤBull.Amer.Meteor.SocǤǡ͹͹ǡʹͻͲ͹ǦʹͻͳͺǤ 10.NielsenǦGammon,J.W.ǡȗǤ Ǥǡͳͻͻ͸ǣ Ǧ ǤJ.Atmos.Sci.ǡͷ͵ǡ͵ͳʹͲǦ͵ͳͶʹǤ ͻǤȗǡǤǤǡJ.W.NielsenǦGammonǡǤǤǡͳͻͻ͸ǣ ǡ ǡ ǦǦ ǣͳͻͻ͸ ǤBull.Amer.Meteor.SocǤǡ͹͹ǡͳͶͺ͵Ǧ ͳͶͻͷǤ 8.NielsenǦGammon,J.W.ǡͳͻͻͷǣ Ǧ ǣ ǤTellusǡͶ͹ǡ͹ͲͷǦ͹ʹͳǤ ͹ǤȗǡǤ ǤǡJ.W.NielsenǦGammonǡͳͻͻͷǣ ǤTellusǡͶ͹ǡ͸͵ͺǦ͸ͷͷǤ 6.NielsenǦGammon,J.W.ǡǤǡͳͻͻͷǣ Ǧ Ǧͺͺǣ ǤWea.ForecastingǡͳͲǡͳʹ͹Ǧ ͳͶͲǤ ͷǤǡǤ ǤǡJ.W.Nielsenǡͳͻͻ͵ǣ ǤMon.Wea.RevǤǡͳʹͳǡͳ͸ͺͺǦͳ͹ͲʹǤ 4.Nielsen,J.W.ǡǤǤǡͳͻͻʹǣ ǤMon.Wea.Rev.ǡͳʹͲǡͳͳͷ͸Ǧͳͳ͸͹Ǥ 3.Nielsen,J.W.ǡͳͻͻʹǣ Ǧ ǤJ.Atmos.SciǤǡͶͻǡ͵͸ͻǦ͵ͺ͸Ǥ 2.Nielsen,J.W.ǡǤǤǡͳͻͻͲǣ ǤMon.Wea.RevǤǡͳͳͺǡͳ͹ͻ͵ǦͳͺͲ͹Ǥ 1.Nielsen,J.W.ǡͳͻͺͻǣ ǤMon.Wea.RevǤǡͳͳ͹ǡ ͳ͵ͺͲǦͳͶͲͳǤ Books,Monographs,andPeerǦReviewedReports ʹǤ ǡʹͲͲͺǣǤǤ ǯ ͳǤ͵ǣǲ

John W. Nielsen-Gammon page 13 of 27 ǣ ǳǤ ǡǡǤǤǡǤȋȌ ͳǤ ǡͳͻͻʹǣǣ ǡ ǡǡǤǤǡͻͻǤȋ Ǧ Ȍ ChaptersinBooks 6.NielsenǦGammon,J.W.ǡʹͲͳͲǣ ǤTheImpactofGlobal WarmingonTexas. ǤǤǡ Ǥ ǡ ǤǡǤǡ ǡǤȋǢǣȀȀǤ ǤȌ 5.NielsenǦGammon,J.W.ǡȗǤ ǡʹͲͲͻǣ ͳͺͶ͵ǣ ǫHistoricalClimateVariabilityandImpactsintheUnitedStates.ǤǦǤ Ǧ Ǥ ǡǤǡǡ ǡǤ 4.NielsenǦGammon,J.W.ǡȗǤǤ ǡʹͲͲͺǣ ǣ ǤǤͳͺ͵ǦʹͲʹSynopticǦDynamic MeteorologyandWeatherForecasting:ATributetoFredSandersǤǤ Ǥ Ǥ ǤǡǤǡǤǤ ǤǡͶʹ͵Ǥ 3.NielsenǦGammon,J.W.ǡʹͲͲ͵ǣ ǤȋʹͲǤȌTexasMasterNaturalist StatewideCurriculumǡǤǤ ǡǤǡ Ǥǡ 2.NielsenǦGammon,J.W.ǡʹͲͲ͵ǣǦ ǤHandbookofWeather, Climate,andWater:Dynamics,Climate,PhysicalMeteorology,WeatherSystems,and MeasurementsǡǤǤǤǤǡǤ ǡǤͷͲͻǦͷͶͳǤ 1.NielsenǦGammon,J.W.ǡʹͲͲ͵ǣǤHandbookofWeather, Climate,andWater:Dynamics,Climate,PhysicalMeteorology,WeatherSystems,and MeasurementsǡǤǤǤǤǡǤ ǡǤͷͲ͵ǦͷͲͺǤ EditorofBooks ͳǤǡǤǤǡǤǤǡʹͲͲ͵ǣ ǡǡǣ ǡǡ ǡǡǤ ǡͻ͹͵Ǥȋǲǳ ǡǤͷͲͳǦ͸ͺͺǤȌ EncyclopediaEntries 4.NielsenǦGammon,J.W.,ʹͲͳͲǣǤ ǡ ǡǤ Ǥ ǡǤǡǡǤ 3.NielsenǦGammon,J.W.ǡͳͻͻ͸ǣǤ ǡǤ Ǥ ǡǤǡǡͳͺͲǦͳͺͶǤ 2.NielsenǦGammon,J.W.ǡͳͻͻ͸ǣ Ǥ ǡǤ Ǥ ǡǤǡʹͷͲǦʹͷͶǤ 1.NielsenǦGammon,J.W.ǡͳͻͻ͸ǣ Ǥ ǡǤ Ǥ ǡǤǡ͵͹͹Ǧ͵͹ͻǤ PopularPress

John W. Nielsen-Gammon page 14 of 27 NielsenǦGammon,J.,ʹͺǡʹͲͲͺǣ Ȃ ǤHoustonChronicleǡ ǡǤ TheCattlemanMagazineǡ ǡ ǡTheWayoftheWeatherǡʹͲͲͲǦʹͲͲͷǤ ElectronicMedia Nielsen-Gammon, J. W., 2010: What Texas’s Petition for Reconsideration to the EPA says. Atmo.Sphere, Houston Chronicle web site, www.chron.com/commons/readerblogs/atmosphere (direct link: http://tinyurl.com/y86q8nt) Nielsen-Gammon, J. W., 2010: Record snowstorms are caused by…the weather. Atmo.Sphere, Houston Chronicle web site, www.chron.com/commons/readerblogs/atmosphere (direct link: http://tinyurl.com/ybkg36x) Nielsen-Gammon, J. W., 2010: D’Aleo and Watts report: Correction. Atmo.Sphere, Houston Chronicle web site, www.chron.com/commons/readerblogs/atmosphere (direct link: http://tinyurl.com/yec3ads) Nielsen-Gammon, J. W., 2010: The IPCC vs. Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts. Atmo.Sphere, Houston Chronicle web site, www.chron.com/commons/readerblogs/atmosphere (direct link: http://tinyurl.com/ykfy8aa) Nielsen-Gammon, J. W., 2010: Update on the IPCC 2035 error. Atmo.Sphere, Houston Chronicle web site, www.chron.com/commons/readerblogs/atmosphere Nielsen-Gammon, J. W., 2009: Why climate science is not for the faint of heart. Atmo.Sphere, Houston Chronicle web site, www.chron.com/commons/readerblogs/atmosphere Nielsen-Gammon, J. W., 2009: By the way, there will still be glaciers in the Himalayas in 2035. Atmo.Sphere, Houston Chronicle web site, www.chron.com/commons/readerblogs/atmosphere (direct link: http://tinyurl.com/yc5hzwl) Nielsen-Gammon, J. W., 2009: Are climate models reliable? Atmo.Sphere, Houston Chronicle web site, www.chron.com/commons/readerblogs/atmosphere Nielsen-Gammon, J. W., 2009: “Those such as … are not to be trusted.” Atmo.Sphere, Houston Chronicle web site, www.chron.com/commons/readerblogs/atmosphere Nielsen-Gammon, J. W., 2009: Why the “recent lack of warming” and the “hockey stick” matter. Atmo.Sphere, Houston Chronicle web site, www.chron.com/commons/readerblogs/atmosphere Nielsen-Gammon, J. W., 2009: A must-see Texas climate change graphic. Atmo.Sphere, Houston Chronicle web site, www.chron.com/commons/readerblogs/atmosphere Nielsen-Gammon, J. W., 2009: Why Kilimanjaro’s ice cap is shrinking. Atmo.Sphere, Houston Chronicle web site, www.chron.com/commons/readerblogs/atmosphere Nielsen-Gammon, J. W., 2009: Is global warming evidence solid? More say no. Atmo.Sphere, Houston Chronicle web site, www.chron.com/commons/readerblogs/atmosphere Nielsen-Gammon, J. W., 2009: Tree rings: who’s winning? Atmo.Sphere, Houston Chronicle web site, www.chron.com/commons/readerblogs/atmosphere Nielsen-Gammon, J. W., 2009: Texas state snowfall record established…in July. Atmo.Sphere,

John W. Nielsen-Gammon page 15 of 27 Houston Chronicle web site, www.chron.com/commons/readerblogs/atmosphere Nielsen-Gammon, J. W., 2009: The 2009 Texas drought: Is it the worst ever? Atmo.Sphere, Houston Chronicle web site, www.chron.com/commons/readerblogs/atmosphere Nielsen-Gammon, J. W., 2009: Another look at the Carbondale “Hurricane”. Atmo.Sphere, Houston Chronicle web site, www.chron.com/commons/readerblogs/atmosphere Nielsen-Gammon, J. W., 2009: Is there a law against global warming? Atmo.Sphere, Houston Chronicle web site, www.chron.com/commons/readerblogs/atmosphere Nielsen-Gammon, J. W., 2009: Ground zero for Texas drought: Rockport. Atmo.Sphere, Houston Chronicle web site, www.chron.com/commons/readerblogs/atmosphere Nielsen-Gammon, J. W., 2009: Lord Monckton responds to the challenge. Atmo.Sphere, Houston Chronicle web site, www.chron.com/commons/readerblogs/atmosphere (direct link: http://tinyurl.com/yeqb9xl) Nielsen-Gammon, J. W., 2009: Nielsen-Gammon challenges Lord Monckton: The “CO2 concentration” graph. Atmo.Sphere, Houston Chronicle web site, www.chron.com/commons/readerblogs/atmosphere (direct link: http://tinyurl.com/yzrvr73) Nielsen-Gammon, J. W., 2009: Lord Monckton challenges Nielsen-Gammon: The “accelerating global warming” graph. Atmo.Sphere, Houston Chronicle web site, www.chron.com/commons/readerblogs/atmosphere (direct link: http://tinyurl.com/ydeojpz) Nielsen-Gammon, J. W., 2009: What’s the most credible evidence against the existence of global warming? Atmo.Sphere, Houston Chronicle web site, www.chron.com/commons/readerblogs/atmosphere Nielsen-Gammon, J. W., 2009: The Skeptic’s Handbook. Atmo.Sphere, Houston Chronicle web site, www.chron.com/commons/readerblogs/atmosphere Nielsen-Gammon, J. W., 2009: The attack of the factoids. Atmo.Sphere, Houston Chronicle web site, www.chron.com/commons/readerblogs/atmosphere Nielsen-Gammon, J. W., 2009: What if the temperature goes down? Atmo.Sphere, Houston Chronicle web site, www.chron.com/commons/readerblogs/atmosphere Nielsen-Gammon, J. W., 2008: Water vapor: easy. Precipitation: hard. Atmo.Sphere, Houston Chronicle web site, www.chron.com/commons/readerblogs/atmosphere Nielsen-Gammon, J. W., 2008: El Nino vs. climate projections for Texas. Precipitation: hard. Atmo.Sphere, Houston Chronicle web site, www.chron.com/commons/readerblogs/atmosphere Nielsen-Gammon, J. W., 2008: Climate change attribution and reanalysis: the press release. Atmo.Sphere, Houston Chronicle web site, www.chron.com/commons/readerblogs/atmosphere Nielsen-Gammon, J. W., 2008: Belated GIFTS: an IAQ. Atmo.Sphere, Houston Chronicle web site, www.chron.com/commons/readerblogs/atmosphere Nielsen-Gammon, J. W., 2008: Now that we’ve experienced Ike, what about The Big One? (with update). Atmo.Sphere, Houston Chronicle web site, www.chron.com/commons/readerblogs/atmosphere Nielsen-Gammon, J. W., 2008: The climate science publication system is dysfunctional. Atmo.Sphere, Houston Chronicle web site, www.chron.com/commons/readerblogs/atmosphere Nielsen-Gammon, J. W., 2008: Drought update. Atmo.Sphere, Houston Chronicle web site,

John W. Nielsen-Gammon page 16 of 27 www.chron.com/commons/readerblogs/atmosphere Nielsen-Gammon, J. W., 2008: A climate fable. Atmo.Sphere, Houston Chronicle web site, www.chron.com/commons/readerblogs/atmosphere Nielsen-Gammon, J. W., 2008: Did Dolly demolish drought? Atmo.Sphere, Houston Chronicle web site, www.chron.com/commons/readerblogs/atmosphere Nielsen-Gammon, J. W., 2008: The new baseline. Atmo.Sphere, Houston Chronicle web site, www.chron.com/commons/readerblogs/atmosphere Nielsen-Gammon, J. W., 2008: State climatologists. Atmo.Sphere, Houston Chronicle web site, www.chron.com/commons/readerblogs/atmosphere Nielsen-Gammon, J. W., 2008: Yum. An aerosol sandwich. Atmo.Sphere, Houston Chronicle web site, www.chron.com/commons/readerblogs/atmosphere Nielsen-Gammon, J. W., 2008: Climate extremes, Part 1: Texas drought. Atmo.Sphere, Houston Chronicle web site, www.chron.com/commons/readerblogs/atmosphere Nielsen-Gammon, J. W., 2008: Putting drought in historical perspective. Atmo.Sphere, Houston Chronicle web site, www.chron.com/commons/readerblogs/atmosphere Nielsen-Gammon, J. W., 2008: Reid Bryson, 1920-2008. Atmo.Sphere, Houston Chronicle web site, www.chron.com/commons/readerblogs/atmosphere Nielsen-Gammon, J. W., 2008: Hot and humid, hotandhumid, hotnhumid.... Atmo.Sphere, Houston Chronicle web site, www.chron.com/commons/readerblogs/atmosphere Nielsen-Gammon, J. W., 2008: A dry spring could mean an ugly summer. Atmo.Sphere, Houston Chronicle web site, www.chron.com/commons/readerblogs/atmosphere Nielsen-Gammon, J. W., 2008: Where’s the SAP? Atmo.Sphere, Houston Chronicle web site, www.chron.com/commons/readerblogs/atmosphere Nielsen-Gammon, J. W., 2008: Brits rely on Rumsfeld in climate article. Atmo.Sphere, Houston Chronicle web site, www.chron.com/commons/readerblogs/atmosphere SelectedTechnicalReports NielsenǦGammon,J.,Ǥ ǡʹͲͲͻǣ ʹͲͲͺǦͲͻ ʹͲͲͻǤ ǡǡ ǦͲͻͲͳǡʹͶǤȋʹͲͲͻȌ ǣȀȀǤǤȀ ȀͲͻǤ ǡNielsenǦGammon,J.W.,ʹͲͲ͸ǣǤ ̶Ǥ͸Ͳ̶ǡȋ Ǥ ʹͲͲ͸Ȍ ǣȀȀ Ǥ ǤǤȀ ǦȀ Ȁ Ǥǫ α̴ ʹƬα ͸ͲƬα̶Ǥͳ͵Ǥ NielsenǦGammon,J.W.ǡ ǤǡǤ ǡʹͲͲͷǣ Ǧ ǡǤ ǣǦ Ǧ Ǥ ȀȀǡ͹ͻǤ NielsenǦGammon,J.W.ǡ ǤǡǤ ǡ ǤǡʹͲͲͷǣ Ǧ ǡǤ ǣ Ǥ ȀȀǡͷʹǤ NielsenǦGammon,J.ǡ Ǥ ǡʹͲͲͶǣǯ ǣ ǤͲͶǦͳǡͳͶǤ NielsenǦGammon,J.W.ǡȗǤǦǤ ǡʹͲͲ͵ǣ

John W. Nielsen-Gammon page 17 of 27 ʹͲͲͲ Ǧ ǣ ǤǡͶ͸Ǥ NielsenǦGammon,J.W.ǡʹͲͲʹǣ ʹͲͲͲ Ǧ ǣ Ǥ ǡ͵ͲǤ ǡǤǡJ.NielsenǦGammonǡǤǡʹͲͲʹǣ ʹͲͲͲ Ǧ Ǥ ǡͳ͹ʹǤ NielsenǦGammon,J.W.ǡʹͲͲʹǣ ʹͲͲͲ Ǧ ǣ Ǧ ʹͲͲʹǤǡʹ͵Ǥ NielsenǦGammon,J.W.ǡʹͲͲʹǣ ʹͲͲͲ Ǧ ǣ ǡ ǡ ǤǡͳͲͻǤ NielsenǦGammon,J.W.ǡʹͲͲʹǣ ʹͲͲͲ Ǧ Ǥǡ ͺ͵Ǥ NielsenǦGammon,J.W.ǡʹͲͲͳǣ ʹͲͲͲ Ǧ Ǥǡ͹ͳǤ ȗ ǡǤǦǤǡJ.W.NielsenǦGammonǡʹͲͲͲǣǦͷƬǣ ǦʹͲͲͲǤǡ ʹͲǤ NielsenǦGammon,J.W.ǡȗǤǡʹͲͲͲǣ ͷ Ǧ ǤǡͻʹǤ ǡǤǤǡǤ ǤǡJ.W.NielsenǦGammonǡǤǤǡ Ǥ Ǥ ǡǤǤǡ Ǥ Ǥǡͳͻͻͷǣǣ Ǥ ǡ͸͵Ǥ ȗǡǤǡJ.NielsenǦGammonǡͳͻͻͷǣ ʹ͹ǡͳͻͻͶǡ Ǥ Ǧͳ͸͸ǡͳ͵Ǥ NielsenǦGammon,J.W.ǡȗǤǤ ǡͳͻͻͶǣ Ǥ ǦͳͷͺǡͳͺǤ SubmittedorInPreparation ȗǡǤǡJ.W.NielsenǦGammonǡʹͲͳͲǣ Ǥ ǣ ǤJ.ClimateǡǤ ȗǡǤǡJ.W.NielsenǦGammonǡʹͲͳͲǣ Ǥ ǣ Ǧ .J.ClimateǡǤ NielsenǦGammon,J.W.,ǤǦǤ ǡ Ǥǡ ǤǡʹͲͳͲǣ ǤMon. Wea.Rev.ǡǤ ǡǤǦǤǡJ.W.NielsenǦGammonǡ ǤǡʹͲͳͲǣ ǤJ.Appl.Meteor.Clim.ǡǤ

John W. Nielsen-Gammon page 18 of 27 ǡǤǤǡǤ ǤǡǤ ǤǡǤǤǡǤǤǡǤǤǡǤǤǡ ǤǤ ǡǤǡ ǤǤǡǤǤǡ ǤǦ ǡǤǤ ǡǤǤǡʹͲͳͲǣ ͵ ǡ ǣǡǡǦ ǤJ.Geophys.Res.ǡǤ ȗǡǤǡJ.W.NielsenǦGammonǡʹͲͳͲǣ ǤJ.Atmos.Sci.ǡ Ǥ ǡǤǡJ.W.NielsenǦGammonǡʹͲͳͲǣ Ǧ ǤJ.Geophys.Res.,Ǥ STUDENTTHESESANDDISSERTATIONS DoctoralDissertations ǡʹͲͲ͹ǣ Ǥ ǡʹͲͲͷǣ Ǧ Ǥ ǡʹͲͲͶǣ ͷ Ǥ ǡʹͲͲͶǣ Ǥ ǡʹͲͲʹǣ Ȁ ǯǦǤ ͳͻͻͷǣ Ǥ Master'sTheses ʹͲͲͺǣ ǣ Ǧ Ǥ ʹͲͲͷǣ ǡ ǡǡ Ǥ Ǥǡ ʹͲͲͶǣ Ǧ Ǥ Ǥǡ ʹͲͲͶǣ Ǥ ʹͲͲͶǣ Ǥ Ǥǡ ʹͲͲ͵ǣ ǡǤ ǤǡʹͲͲ͵ǣ Ǧͺͺ Ǥ ʹͲͲʹǣǦ

John W. Nielsen-Gammon page 19 of 27 Ǥ ʹͲͲͳǣ ǣ Ǥ ǤǡʹͲͲͳǣ ͳͻͻͺǣ ͷ Ǥ ʹͲͲͳǣ ͳǦǤ ʹͲͲͳǣ Ǥ ʹͲͲͲǣ ͳ͸Ǧͳͻ ͳͻͻͶ ǣ Ǥ ʹͲͲͲǣ Ǥ ǤǡͳͻͻͻǣǦ Ǧ Ǥ Ǥǡͳͻͻͺǣ Ǧ Ǥ ͳͻͻ͹ǣǦ ͳǤ ͳͻͻ͸ǣ Ǥ ͳͻͻ͸ǣ Ǥ Ǥǡͳͻͻ͸ǣ Ǧ Ǥ ͳͻͻ͸ǣ Ǥ ͳͻͻͶǣ Ǥ ǡͳͻͻͶǣ Ǧ Ǥ CURRENTGRADUATESTUDENTS(CommitteechairorcoǦchair) ǤǤǣ ǤǤǣ SELECTEDPRESENTATIONS ȗ ȗȗ Invited(2000Ǧpresent) Ǧ ǡ ǤǤǡʹͲͳͲǣǤ ǣǡ ǡǡǤ Ǧ ǡ ǤǤǡʹͲͳͲǣǤ ǡǡǤ

John W. Nielsen-Gammon page 20 of 27 Ǧ ǡ ǤǤǡʹͲͳͲǣ ǤʹͲͳͲ ǡ ǡ ǡǤ Ǧ ǡ ǤǤǡʹͲͳͲǣ ǣǤ Ǥǡǡ ǡǡ Ǥ Ǧ ǡ ǤǤǡǤǦǤ ǡ Ǥǡ ǤǡʹͲͲͻǣ Ǥ ǡǡǤ Ǧ ǡ ǤǤǡʹͲͲͻǣǤǡǡ ǡǤ Ǧ ǡ ǤǤǡʹͲͲͻǣ Ǥ ǡ ǡǡǤ Ǧ ǡ ǤǤǡʹͲͲͻǣǣ Ǥ ǡ ǡǡ Ǥ ǡǤǡ ǤǦ ǡʹͲͲͻǣ Ǥ ǡ ǡǤ Ǧ ǡ ǤǤǡʹͲͲͻǣ ǯǤ Ȃ ǯǤ ǡ ǡǤ ǡǤǡ Ǥǡ ǤǦ ǡʹͲͲͻǣ Ǥ ǡǯ ǡǡǤ Ǧ ǡ ǤǤǡʹͲͲͻǣǤ ǡ ƬǡǡǤ Ǧ ǡ ǤǤǡʹͲͲͻǣ ʹͲͲͻǦʹͲͳͲǤ ǯ ǡǡ ǡǤ Ǧ ǡ ǤǤǡʹͲͲͻǣǤ ǡ ǡǡǤ Ǧ ǡ ǤǤǡʹͲͲͻǣǤ ǣ ǡ Ǥǡ ǡǤ ǡǤǤǡ ǤǤǦ ǡʹͲͲͻǣ Ǧ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡǤ Ǧ ǡ ǤǤǡʹͲͲͻǣǤ ǡ ǡ ǡǤ Ǧ ǡ ǤǤǡʹͲͲͻǣǤ ǡ ǡ ǡǤ Ǧ ǡ ǤǤǡʹͲͲͻǣ ǫͺ ǡ ǡǡǤ Ǧ ǡ ǤǤǡǤǤ ǡʹͲͲͺǣ Ǥ ǡ ǡǤ Ǧ ǡ ǤǤǡʹͲͲͺǣ ǣ

John W. Nielsen-Gammon page 21 of 27 ǤǤ ǡ ǡ ǡǤ Ǧ ǡ ǤǤǡʹͲͲͺǣǣǤ ǤǤ ǡƬǤ Ǧ ǡ ǤǤǡʹͲͲͺǣ Ǥ ǡ ǡǤ Ǧ ǡ ǤǤǡʹͲͲͺǣ ǣ ǤǤ ǡǡǤ Ǧ ǡ ǤǤǡʹͲͲͺǣ ǫ ǡǡǤ Ǧ ǡ ǤǤǡʹͲͲͺǣǦǤ ǡǡǤ Ǧ ǡ ǤǤǡʹͲͲͺǣ ǣǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡȋȌǤ Ǧ ǡ ǤǤǡʹͲͲͺǣǤ ǡ ǡǤ Ǧ ǡ ǤǤǡʹͲͲͺǣǤ ǡǡǤ Ǧ ǡ ǤǤǡʹͲͲͺǣǤ ǡ ǡǡǤ Ǧ ǡ ǤǤǡʹͲͲ͹ǣǤǡ ǡǤ Ǧ ǡ ǤǤǡʹͲͲ͹ǣ ǣǤǤ ǡ ǡǤ Ǧ ǡ ǤǤǡʹͲͲ͹ǣǤ ǡǡǤ Ǧ ǡ ǤǤǡʹͲͲ͹ǣǤ ǤȀ ǡǡǤ ȗǦ ǡ ǤǤǡʹͲͲ͹ǣ ǡ Ǥ ǡƬǤǡǡǤ Ǧ ǡ ǤǤǡʹͲͲ͹ǣ ǣǤǤ ǡǡǤ Ǧ ǡ ǤǤǡʹͲͲ͹ǣ ǢǤǤǡǡǤ Ǧ ǡ ǤǤǡʹͲͲ͹ǣ Ǥ ǡǡǤ Ǧ ǡ ǤǤǡʹͲͲ͹ǣ ǣǤǤƬ ǡǡǤ Ǧ ǡ ǤǤǡʹͲͲ͹ǣ Ǥ ǡǡǤ Ǧ ǡ ǤǤǡʹͲͲ͹ǣǦ ǣ Ǥ ǡ ǡǤ Ǧ ǡ ǤǤǡȗǤǡǤ ǤǡǤǡǤǡǤǡǤ

John W. Nielsen-Gammon page 22 of 27 ǡǤǡǤǡʹͲͲ͹ǣ Ǥ ǡ ǡǤ Ǧ ǡ ǤǤǡʹͲͲ͹ǣǤ ǡǡǤ Ǧ ǡ ǤǤǡʹͲͲ͹ǣǤ ǡ ǡǤ Ǧ ǡ ǤǤǡʹͲͲ͸ǣǣ ǫ ǫǫͳ͵ ǯ ǡ ǡǤ Ǧ ǡ ǤǤǡʹͲͲ͸ǣ Ǥ ǡ ǡǡǤ Ǧ ǡ ǤǤǡʹͲͲ͸ǣ ǤȀ ǡǡǤ Ǧ ǡ ǤǤǡʹͲͲ͸ǣ Ǥ ǡ ǡǤ Ǧ ǡ ǤǤǡʹͲͲ͸ǣ ʹͲͲͶȀʹͲͲͷ Ǥ ǡ ǡǤ Ǧ ǡ ǤǤǡʹͲͲͷǣǤ ǤȀ ǡǡǤ Ǧ ǡ ǤǤǡʹͲͲͷǣǤ ǡǡǤ Ǧ ǡ ǤǤǡʹͲͲͶǣ Ǥ ǡǡǤ Ǧ ǡ ǤǤǡʹͲͲͶǣǤ ǤȀ ǡǡǤ Ǧ ǡ ǤǤǡʹͲͲͶǣ Ǥ ǡ ǡǡǤ Ǧ ǡ ǤǤǡʹͲͲͶǣȂ Ǥ ǡǡǡǤ Ǧ ǡ ǤǤǡʹͲͲͶǣǦ Ǥ ǡ ǡǤ Ǧ ǡ ǤǤǡǤǡ ǤǡʹͲͲ͵ǣ ǫȂ Ǥ ǣ ǡǡ ǡǤ Ǧ ǡ ǤǤǡȗǤǡȗǤ ǡʹͲͲ͵ǣǦ Ǧ Ǥ Ǧ Ǧ ǡ ǡ Ǥ Ǧ ǡ ǤǤǡʹͲͲ͵ǣ Ǥ ǡǡ Ǥ Ǧ ǡ ǤǤǡʹͲͲʹǣ Ǥ ǡ ǤǡǡǤ Ǧ ǡ ǤǤǡʹͲͲʹǣ Ǥ ǡǡǤ Ǧ ǡ ǤǤǡʹͲͲʹǣ Ǥ ǡǡ Ǥ

John W. Nielsen-Gammon page 23 of 27 Ǧ ǡ ǤǤǡʹͲͲʹǣ Ǥ ǡ ǡǤ Ǧ ǡ ǤǤǡʹͲͲʹǣ ǯǡǫ ǡ ǡ ǡǤ Ǧ ǡ ǤǤǡʹͲͲͳǣǣ Ǥͳ͵ ǡǡ ǡǤ Ǧ ǡ ǤǤǡʹͲͲͳǣ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥ Ǧ ǡ ǤǤǡʹͲͲͳǣ Ǥ ǡǡǤȋʹͲͲʹǡʹͲͲʹȌ Ǧ ǡ ǤǤǡʹͲͲͲǣ ǤƬ Ǥ Ǧ ǡ ǤǤǡʹͲͲͲǣǦ Ǥǡ ǡǤ OtherPresentations(pastfiveyears) ǡǤǦǤǡ ǤǤǦ ǡ ǤǡʹͲͳͲǣǦ ǣǦ Ǥ ǡǡǤ Ǧ ǡ ǤǤǡǤǦǤ ǡ Ǥǡ ǤǡʹͲͳͲǣ Ǥ ǡǡǤ ǡǤǤǡ ǤǤǦ ǡ ǤǡʹͲͳͲǣǦ Ǥͳͺ ǡǡǡ Ǥ ǡ ǤǡǤ ǦǡǤǡ ǤǦǤǡǤǤǡ ǤǡǤǡǤ ǡ ǤǦ ǡǤǡʹͲͲͻǣ ǡǤͺ ǡ ǡǤ Ǧ ǡ ǤǤǡǤ ǡʹͲͲͻǣ ǣ ǤǤǤ ǡǡǤ Ǧ ǡ ǤǤǡǤǤ ǡ ǤǡʹͲͲͻǣ Ǧ ǤǦͲͻǡ Ǧ Ǧ ʹͲͲͻ ǡǡǤ Ǧ ǡ ǤǤǡȗǤǤ ǡʹͲͲͻǣ Ǥͳ͸ Ǧ ǡǡǡǤ Ǧ ǡ ǤǤǡǤǤ ǡʹͲͲͺǣ ͳͺͶ͵ǣ ǫͳͶ ǡ ǡǤ Ǧ ǡ ǤǤǡȗǤǤ ǡʹͲͲͺǣ Ǧ Ǥͳ͹ ǡ ǡǡǤǤ ǡǤǤǡ ǤǤǦ ǡǤǤǡʹͲͲͺǣ ǣ Ǥͳ͹ ǡ ǡǡǤǤ ǡǤǤǡǤǡǤǡǤǡǤ ǡǤǡ ǤǤǦ ǡǤǤǡʹͲͲͺǣ ǤͳͲ ǡ

John W. Nielsen-Gammon page 24 of 27 ǡǡǤ ȗǡ Ǥǡ ǤǦ ǡʹͲͲͺǣ ʹ ǤͳͲ ǡ ǡǡǤ Ǧ ǡ ǤǤǡȗǤ ǡʹͲͲͺǣ ͳͺͶ͵ǣ ǫ ǡ ǡ ǡǤ Ǧ ǡ ǤǤǡʹͲͲͺǣǤ͹ ǡ ǡǡǤ ǡǤǡǤǡ ǤǦ ǡǤǡǤǡǤǡǤ ǡǤ ǡ Ǥ ǡǤǡǤǡʹͲͲ͹ǣ ǣǤ ǡ ǡ ǡǤ Ǧ ǡ ǤǤǡȗ ǤǡʹͲͲ͹ǣ ǡǤ ǡ ǡ ǡǤ ȗǡǤǡ ǤǤǦ ǡʹͲͲ͹ǣǦ Ǥǡ ǡǡ Ǥ Ǧ ǡ ǤǤǡʹͲͲ͹ǣ Ǧ ǤǦ ǡ ǡǡǤ Ǧ ǡ ǤǤǡǤǤǡǤ ǤǡǤǡǤǡǤǡǤ ǡǤǡǤǡʹͲͲ͹ǣǦ ǦʹͲͲͲǤǦ ǡǡǡǤ ȗǡǤǡ ǤǤǦ ǡʹͲͲ͹ǣǦǦ ǣ ǯ ǫǦ ǡ ǡǡǤ ȗǡ Ǥǡ ǤǤǦ ǡʹͲͲ͹ǣ Ǥͳ͸ ǡ ǡǡǤ ȗǡǤǡ ǤǤǦ ǡʹͲͲ͹ǣǤ ǡ ǡǡǤ ǡǤǤǡȗǤǡ ǤǤǦ ǡ ǤǡʹͲͲ͸ǣ ʹǦ Ǥ ǡ ǡǤ ǡǤǤǡȗǤǡ ǤǤǦ ǡ ǤǡʹͲͲ͸ǣ ʹǦ Ǥ ǡ ǡǡ Ǥ Ǧ ǡ ǤǤǡʹͲͲͷǣ ǤǤ ǡ ƬǡǡǤ Ǧ ǡ ǤǤǡ ǤǡǤ ǡʹͲͲͷǣ Ǥ ǡǤ

John W. Nielsen-Gammon page 25 of 27 ȗǡǤǡ Ǥǡ ǤǤǦ ǡʹͲͲͷǣ ǦǤͳ͹ ǡ ǡǡǤǤ Ǧ ǡ ǤǤǡȗ ǤǡȗǤ ǡʹͲͲͷǣǦ Ǥͳͷ ǡ ǡǡ Ǥ ǡǤǤǡǤǡ ǤǦ ǡʹͲͲͷǣ ǣ ǡȂʹͲͲͷǦʹͲͲ͸Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡǤ Ǧ ǡ ǤǤǡȗǤǤǡǤǤǡǤ ǡʹͲͲͷǣ ǫ͸ ǡ ǡǡǤ Ǧ ǡ ǤǤǡ ǤǡȗǤǤǡȗǤǡʹͲͲͷǣ ǣ Ǥͳͻ ǡ ǡǡǤ ǡǤǡǤǡ ǤǦ ǡǤǡǤǡǤǡȗǤǡȗǤǡ ȗ ǤǡʹͲͲͷǣ ȋ Ȍ ȂʹͲͲͷǤ ǡ ǡǡǤ Ǧ ǡ ǤǤǡǤǡǤǤǡǤǤǡǤǡǤǡʹͲͲͶǣ ȋ ȌǤͷ ǡ ǡ ǡǤ Ǧ ǡ ǤǤȗǤǤ ǡʹͲͲͶǣ Ǥ ǡ ǡǡǤ Ǧ ǡ ǤǤǡȗǤǡǤǡǤ ǡʹͲͲͶǣ Ǥ ǡ ǡǡǤ ȗǡǤǡ Ǥǡ ǤǤǦ ǡǤǡǤǡʹͲͲͶǣǦ ǤʹͲ Ȁͳ͸ Ȁ ǡ ǡǡǤ ȗǡǤǡǤǡ ǤǦ ǡǤǡǤǡǤǡǤǡ ȗǤǦǤ ǡʹͲͲͶǣ ǡǡǡ ǡ Ǥ͸ ǣ Ȁǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡǤ ȗ ǡǤǦǤǡǤǡǤ ǡ ǤǦ ǡǤǡǤǡǤǤ ǡʹͲͲͶǣ ǣ Ǥǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡǤ ǡǤǡ ǤǦ ǡǤǡǤǡʹͲͲͶǣǡ ǡ

John W. Nielsen-Gammon page 26 of 27 ǣ ʹͲͲͷǤ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡǡǤ

John W. Nielsen-Gammon page 27 of 27 Page 1 of 1

______John W. Nielsen-Gammon Professor and Texas State Climatologist Dept. of Atmospheric Sciences, Texas A&M University (O&M Rm 1210F) 3150 TAMUS, College Station, TX 77843-3150 Ph 979-862-2248aaFax 979-862-4466

file://C:\Documents and Settings\sky\Local Settings\Temp\A9R6AAB.tmp\Untitled attachment 67118.htm 5/11/2012 From: Phil Mote To: Boslough Cc: Boslough, Mark B; Stephen H Schneider; [email protected]; Thomas Crowley; [email protected]; Dr. Krishna AchutaRao; Myles Allen; Natalia Andronova; Tim C Atkinson; Rick Anthes; Caspar Ammann; David C. Bader; Tim Barnett; Eric Barron; Graham" "Bench; Pat Berge; George Boer; Celine J. W. Bonfils; James A." "Bono; James Boyle; Ray Bradley; Robin Bravender; Keith Briffa; Wolfgang Brueggemann; Lisa Butler; Ken Caldeira; Peter Caldwell; Dan Cayan; Peter U. Clark; Amy Clement; Nancy Cole; William Collins; Tina Conrad; Curtis Covey; birte dar; Davies Trevor Prof; Jay Davis; Tomas Diaz De La Rubia; Andrew Dessler; Michael" "Dettinger; Phil Duffy; Paul J." "Ehlenbach; Kerry Emanuel; James Estes; Veronika" "Eyring; David Fahey; Chris Field; Peter Foukal; Melissa Free; Julio Friedmann; Bill Fulkerson; Inez Fung; Jeff Garberson; PETER GENT; Nathan Gillett; peter gleckler; Bill Goldstein; Hal Graboske; Paul Gross; Tom Guilderson; Leopold Haimberger; Alex Hall; James Hansen; harvey; Klaus Hasselmann; Susan Joy Hassol; Gabi Hegerl; Isaac Held; Bob Hirschfeld; Jeremy Hobbs; Dr. Elisabeth A. Holland; Greg Holland; Brian Hoskins; mhughes; James Hurrell; Ken Jackson; c jakob; Gardar Johannesson; Philip D. Jones; Helen Kang; Thomas R Karl; David Karoly; Jeffrey Kiehl; Steve Klein; Knutti Reto; John Lanzante; [email protected]; Ron Lehman; John lewis; Steven A. "Lloyd (GSFC-610.2)[R S INFORMATION SYSTEMS INC]"; Jane Long; Janice Lough; mann; [email protected]; Linda Mearns; carl mears; Jerry Meehl; Jerry Melillo; George Miller; Norman Miller; Art Mirin; John FB" "Mitchell; Neville Nicholls; Gerald R. North; Astrid E.J. Ogilvie; Stephanie Ohshita; Tim Osborn; Stu" "Ostro; j palutikof; Joyce Penner; Thomas C Peterson; Tom Phillips; David Pierce; [email protected]; V. Ramaswamy; Veerabhadran" "Ramanathan; Sarah Raper; Phil Rasch; Kathryn Rauhut; Doug Rotman; Terry L. Root; Robert "Sausen, DLR"; jsanter; John Schellnhuber; David Schimel; Michael Schlesinger; Gavin Schmidt; Christina L. Schomer; Lynda Seaver; Dian J. Seidel; Ted Sheppard; s sherwood; Adrian Simmons; socci anthony; brian soden; Susan Solomon; Ken Sperber; Anne Stark; Thomas Stocker; Ronald J Stouffer; [email protected]; Karl Taylor; claudia tebaldi; Joao P" "Teixeira; Simon Tett; Thomas A." "Tombrello; David Thompson; Lonnie Thompson; ELLEN THOMPSON; Peter" "Thorne; Mike Wallace; Bud Ward; David "Warrilow (GA)"; Warren Washington; Andrew Weaver; Michael Wehner; Frank Wentz; Penny" "Whetton; Dean N. Williams; Gordon Yano; Francis W. Zwiers; Erik M" "Conway; Sanjay Khanna; Graham Cogley; Jeffrey Kargel; W. Crawford Elliott; John Weyant; Anthony Janetos; Alison" "Sowden; Vernon Squire; Eric Garen; Peter Cross; Charles Zeller; Ian Murdock; Victoria A Arroyo; Rashida Leonard; Stephanie Fontenoy; John Collee; Sarah-jane Potts; Greg Dutton Richard B. Rood; Brien Seeley; Mark Seeley; Oliver Morton Cheryl H; Richard" "Somerville; Martin Heimann; Don Kennedy; Heidi Cullen; Shari Bell; Rebecca Bratspies; Pete Myers; Michael Oppenheimer; Tom Wigley; Naomi Oreskes Subject: Re: Top Ten List of denialist misconduct Date: Friday, March 26, 2010 4:48:46 PM

Mark, you sparked a great discussion. there's a similar top-10 list at http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php see also the snappy responses to a longer list at http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/

Phil

Philip Mote, Director Oregon Climate Change Research Institute and Oregon Climate Services College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences Oregon State University Corvallis, OR 97331-2209 t (541) 737-5694 f (541) 737-2540 c (541) 913-CCRI [email protected]

On Mar 20, 2010, at 12:42 PM, Boslough wrote:

> > Folks, I'm preparing a presentation for next month's meeting of New > Mexicans for Science and Reason. The title is "Hockey Stick > Politics: Climategate or Clusterpuck?" (link: http://www.nmsr.org/meetings.htm#latest) > . I could use some help. > > One of my main goals is to demonstrate a pattern of mistakes, > misrepresentation, misconduct, and outright fraud by denialists. > I'm putting together a "Top Ten List" of the examples denialist > wrongdoing that if had been done by mainstream scientists would have > resulted in calls for firings or worse. The scientific community > has not been willing to call out the denialists on this, presumably > because we dont consider non-peer-reviewed literature to be worth > criticizing. In our world, in which claims are debated in by the > rules of science, that would be true. But In the world of climate > politics, the non-peer-reviewed sources are given equal or greater > weight by the public and by policy makers, and should therefore be a > target of intense scientific criticism. > > Here's the start of my top-ten list. If a mainstream scientist were > involved in anything close to one of the items on this list, it > would be front-page news and wall-to-wall talk-show fodder, but > denialists continue to get a free pass (implying that they are > expected to lie and cheat). > > 1. Plagiarism and misrepresentations in the Wegman Report. At > least three pages of Wegman were cribbed with only minor word > changes from Bradley's textbook. Even the title of the Wegman > Report misrepresents the MBH hockey stick as a global climate > reconstruction. Imagine the media reaction if three pages of an > IPCC publication were discovered to have been plagiarized. > > 2. Non-scientists impersonating scientists. The Oregon Petition > contains many names of individuals who claim to be scientists, but > who in fact are engineers, dentists, pharmacists, veterinarians, > etc. It would be a considered an unethical or even criminal act for > an unqualified person to masquerade as a member of one of those > occupations and to give professional advice under that pretense. It > seems that scientists are the only professionals expected to have > the humility to allow others to practice their trade without any > training or basic understanding. > > 3. Willful removal of uncertainty bands on the MBH hockey stick > graph by Singer et al. in the Non-IPCC report, thereby > misrepresenting its purported accuracy. Removing information from a > graph when replotting it is unethical, especially when the > information removed contradicts the point being made by the party > who is criticizing the work. > > 4. Removal of data from the Sargasso Sea temperature history of > Keigwin (1996) and replacement with a fabricated temperature by > Robinson et al. (2007). Robinson also replotted Keigwin's data on a > shifted time scale, either out of ignorance or willful desire to > misrepresent it. The sanitized and time-shifted Keigwin graph was > reproduced in the Non-IPCC report and the fabricated data point was > used to make the claim that temperatures were higher during the MWP. > > 5. Jack Schmitt's claim in a 2009 white paper that Artic (sic) > sea ice has returned to 1989 levels of coverage. (link: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/decadal/leag/) > . The fact that this is an obscure paper is irrelevant; Schmitt is > associated with the Heartland Institute, and putting false > statements into un-reviewed reports is a standard way of meme > laundering (as John Mashey puts it). I wrote to Schmitt about this > and sent him the NSIDC data, so he is aware that his claim has no > factual basis. Nevertheless, he refuses to correct or withdraw the > paper. > > 6. The claim that it has been cooling since 1998. Im not sure > who was the first to come up with this (Bob Carter?). We all know > that this is climatologically meaningless and contrived to deceive, > but non-scientists and gullible journalists think it is important. > A statement that it has been warming since 19xx (where xx is any 2- > digit number other than 98) is equally true. This kind of cherry > picking would be considered criminally fraudulent if it were used to > calculate returns on an investment and advertised that way. > > 7. The claim that, because paleoclimate records show temperature > increases lead CO2 concentration increases, then CO2 cannot cause > temperatures to rise. Who was the first to make this claim, and why > do intelligent people not recognize the obvious logical flaw? Any > scientist who makes this argument either incompetent or is > intentionally perpetrating fraud. We really need to figure out how > to explain this to ordinary people (Richard Alley did it best at > AGU, but he was talking to scientists). > > If anyone has any comments, suggestions, or additions to my list, > please let me know. I'm presenting this on April 14. > > Thanks! > > Mark Boslough > > > From: Rick Anthes To: [email protected] Cc: Paul Gross; Boslough; Boslough Mark B; Stephen H Schneider; [email protected]; Thomas Crowley; [email protected]; Dr. Krishna AchutaRao; Myles Allen; Natalia Andronova; Tim C Atkinson; Caspar Ammann; David C. Bader; Tim Barnett; Eric Barron; Graham" "Bench; Pat Berge; George Boer; Celine J. W. Bonfils; James A." "Bono; James Boyle; Ray Bradley; Robin Bravender; Keith Briffa; Wolfgang Brueggemann; Lisa Butler; Ken Caldeira; Peter Caldwell; Dan Cayan; Peter U. Clark; Amy Clement; Nancy Cole; William Collins; Tina Conrad; Curtis Covey; birte dar; Davies Trevor Prof; Jay Davis; Tomas Diaz De La Rubia; Andrew Dessler; Michael" "Dettinger; Phil Duffy; Paul J." "Ehlenbach; Kerry Emanuel; James Estes; Veronika" "Eyring; David Fahey; Chris Field; Peter Foukal; Melissa Free; Julio Friedmann; Bill Fulkerson; Inez Fung; Jeff Garberson; PETER GENT; Nathan Gillett; peter gleckler; Bill Goldstein; Hal Graboske; Tom Guilderson; Leopold Haimberger; Alex Hall; James Hansen; harvey; Klaus Hasselmann; Susan Joy Hassol; Gabi Hegerl; Isaac Held; Bob Hirschfeld; Jeremy Hobbs; Dr. Elisabeth A. Holland; Greg Holland; Brian Hoskins; mhughes; James Hurrell; Ken Jackson; c jakob; Gardar Johannesson; Philip D. Jones; Helen Kang; Thomas R Karl; David Karoly; Jeffrey Kiehl; Steve Klein; Knutti Reto; John Lanzante; [email protected]; Ron Lehman; John lewis; Steven A. "Lloyd (GSFC-610.2)[R S INFORMATION SYSTEMS INC]"; Jane Long; Janice Lough; mann; [email protected]; Linda Mearns; carl mears; Jerry Meehl; Jerry Melillo; George Miller; Norman Miller; Art Mirin; John FB" "Mitchell; Phil Mote; Neville Nicholls; Gerald R. North; Astrid E.J. Ogilvie; Stephanie Ohshita; Tim Osborn; Stu" "Ostro; j palutikof; Joyce Penner; Thomas C Peterson; Tom Phillips; David Pierce; [email protected]; V. Ramaswamy; Veerabhadran" "Ramanathan; Sarah Raper; Phil Rasch; Kathryn Rauhut; Doug Rotman; Terry L. Root; Robert "Sausen DLR"; jsanter; John Schellnhuber; David Schimel; Michael Schlesinger; Gavin Schmidt; Christina L. Schomer; Lynda Seaver; Dian J. Seidel; Ted Sheppard; s sherwood; Adrian Simmons; socci anthony; brian soden; Susan Solomon; Ken Sperber; Anne Stark; Thomas Stocker; Ronald J Stouffer; [email protected]; Karl Taylor; claudia tebaldi; Joao P" "Teixeira; Simon Tett; Thomas A." "Tombrello; David Thompson; Lonnie Thompson; ELLEN THOMPSON; Peter" "Thorne; Mike Wallace; Bud Ward; David "Warrilow (GA)"; Warren Washington; Andrew Weaver; Michael Wehner; Frank Wentz; Penny" "Whetton; Dean N. Williams; Gordon Yano; Francis W. Zwiers; Erik M" "Conway; Sanjay Khanna; Graham Cogley; Jeffrey Kargel; W. Crawford Elliott; John Weyant; Anthony Janetos; Alison" "Sowden; Vernon Squire; Eric Garen; Peter Cross; Charles Zeller; Ian Murdock; Victoria A Arroyo; Rashida Leonard; Stephanie Fontenoy; John Collee; Sarah-jane Potts; Greg Dutton; Richard B. Rood; Brien Seeley; Mark Seeley; Oliver Morton; Cheryl H; Richard" "Somerville; Martin Heimann; Don Kennedy; Heidi Cullen; Shari Bell; Rebecca Bratspies; Pete Myers; Michael Oppenheimer; Tom Wigley; Naomi Oreskes Subject: Re: Top Ten List of denialist misconduct Date: Thursday, March 25, 2010 10:33:50 AM

Hi again, Several of you liked my "three slides-ten minutes" idea and some suggested changes/additions, mainly to reduce the jargon and acronyms in the slides and notes, increase the explanations (notes) a bit, and provide references/sources. I have tried to do this and present the materials in various ways that you may find useful. These are all in a folder on my webshare at www.fin.ucar.edu/antheswebshare/ which you may download.

The materials include: 1. A Word file with the slides and notes in one document. This file is the easiest to review, print out, share with others, etc. 2. A Word file with the notes alone. 3. A ppt file with the notes in the "speaker notes" part of the file. 4. A pdf version of the slides with the notes in "balloons" at the upper left of each slide. Click on the balloons to read the notes. 5 A jpg file of each slide

Several of you asked if you could use these materials. Absolutely yes as far as I am concerned. But I don't "own" any of the raw materials, so if you formally publish any of this you should probably go to the original source and ask for permission.

I would be happy to receive additional comments on these materials or suggestions for improvements.

Thanks again to Kevin Trenberth for helping me develop this simple, short tutorial. Rick

Rick Anthes wrote:

I like these simple statements countering common deniers' claims. The FAQ approach is also pretty effective. Anything that does not contain long paragraphs and many pages of text--we live in a sound-byte world.

In response to a colleague's question to me recently, "if I could only show one slide to demonstrate global warming and its main cause, what would that be?" I thought about this and discussed with Kevin Trenberth, and I came up with the attached three slides. The one my colleague wanted to use was the third one. I thought one slide might be too limiting and so I tried "three slides and ten minutes" to make the case. Here is what I came up with after looking at hundreds of slides:

Three slides and Ten Minutes

If I had only three slides and ten minutes to convince a lay person that Earth is warming and that increasing greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide, was the primary cause of this warming, these three are the ones I would show. (View these slides in slide show mode.)

The first slide is observations only (mean global surface temperature and CO2). This suggests a correlation, though not perfect, of increasing CO2 and temperature. The positive correlation is easily explained by basic physics--no complex models required. The fact that the temperature increase shows lots of variability from year to year and even decade to decade on top of the long-term trend says that other important processes and phenomena are occurring on time scales of years to decades. These include natural (internal atmosphere-ocean interactions) variability, a small effect due to solar variability, emission of atmospheric aerosols (dust particles and smoke, which actually cause surface cooling; without them the warming would be greater) and occasional volcanoes). It also shows that we should not be surprised when one or two years are colder than the previous few years, even in a world that is warming overall.

Slide 2, which shows a nearly monotonic mean global sea level rise, is very compelling. Global mean sea level is a great integrator--it doesn't “care” about a cold winter or two in the northeastern US or Europe, a heavy snowfall in Washington DC, a hot summer in Kansas, or hurricanes like Katrina. It occurs because of melting glaciers (ice over land), and the thermal expansion of warming sea water. It is also easier to measure now with satellites than the global mean surface temperature.

Slide 3 shows that models with anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcing and aerosols in the atmosphere can pretty well explain the observed surface temperature trend and variability, providing strong evidence confirming the hypothesis that greenhouse gas increases are the main cause of global warming, but that other important things are going on from one year or even decades to the next. Rick

PS--thanks to Kevin for providing these slides. PPS--If I was restricted to only one slide and 3 minutes I would probably choose Slide #2.

Challenges and proposals for alternate slides are welcome, but let's not go over three! Rick

Paul Gross wrote:

Hello Mark, et al, I'd like to comment on this from the broadcast perspective. As a broadcast meteorologist (both a CCM and CBM) who does as much as possible to educate the public about global warming (including writing an entire chapter about this in my upcoming book about Michigan weather), I think I've heard enough of the public's thoughts on the matter to offer some suggestions. First of all, as I believe I mentioned in a previous e- mail several months ago, we need to keep the focus on educating through science, rather than attacking the skeptics. Inflamatory language, and statements directed specifically at skeptics and their practices only cause them to dig their heels deeper and fight harder through personal attacks upon us scientists. Your top-ten list should, in my opinion, focus on the ten most-cited points made by skeptics, and explain how rigorous science has emphatically proved them all wrong. For example: 1. Skeptics like to say that solar output changes are responsible for the warming. While this may have had a small impact 100 years ago, it has NOT been a factor during the unusual warming of the past several decades. This is agreed upon scientific fact. 2. Skeptics like to say that the warming has stopped (since 1998, obviously), and the response to this point has already been discussed in some of our previous e-mails (plus, some recent global climate models actually predict 10-20 year flat periods...but the warming always resumes robustly). This is agreed upon scientific fact. 3. Skeptics like to say that urbanization (urban sprawl) has increased the size of the urban heat island effect, and artificially skewed temperatures upward. The IPCC specifically researched this, and the globally averaged impact from urbanization is only 0.006 degrees Celsius. Another key point to remember is that ocean temperatures are rapidly increasing too...and there's no urban heat island effect over the oceans. This is agreed upon scientific fact. 4. Skeptics like to say that this is just another one of Earth's cycles, and there have been comparable warm periods in the past. While it's true that we've been this warm before, those previous warm periods all started with changes in the Earth's axis or orbit, which initiated a warming that caused a massive GHG release, which then accelerated the warming. This time, however, there has been no change in Earth's axis or orbit whatsoever...the warming had to be initiated by something else. This is agreed upon scientific fact. 5. Skeptics like to say that our climate models are unreliable. I'd rather point out that a climate model is "tested" by seeing how well it "predicts" our current warming and, to date, there has not been one climate model...not one...that successfully replicates our current warming WITHOUT including the anthropogenic GHG component. And besides, one of the most agreed upon predictions by climate models was that higher latitudes would experience a greater climatic response to the increase in GHG...and this most indeed is occurring. This is agreed upon scientific fact. 6. Skeptics like to say that we need more time for research...that nothing should be done until we're "sure" about this. I'd respond to this by saying that the minimum Arctic ice extent has been at and near record lows for each of the past three years. Climate models originally predicted this abrupt decline in Arctic ice to occur between 2020 And 2030, but we are quite possibly seeing it occurring now. Earth is now responding in other ways as well, such as documented thawing of permafrost that may release enormous additional GHG into the atmosphere and further accelerate the warming, and in well- documented species migration. Waiting means that Earth potentially passes critical, irreversable tipping points. This is agreed upon scientific fact. 7. Skeptics like to paint a picture of discord among the scientific community. I'd respectfully counter with the fact that there is no schism among climate scientists worldwide...most are in agreement about the fact that we are warming at a highly unusual and unnatural rate, and the proximate cause is anthropogenic GHG. There will always be a few radicals with different ideas but, in the end, rigorous, debated science always wins out. The cigarette smoking issue cited in a previous e-mail is perfect to cite here. And don't forget to cite the 2008 survey released by the Statistical Assessment Service at George Mason University. Of the 489 Earth and atmospheric scientists surveyed by Harris Interactive, 97 percent said that global temperatures have increased during the past 100 years, and 74 percent agreed that "currently available scientific evidence substantiates the occurrence of human-induced greenhouse warming." The findings mark a significant increase in concern over climate change since 1991, when a Gallup survey of the same universe of scientists showed only 60 percent agreed that temperatures were up and 41 percent believed that evidence pointed to human activity as the cause. This is agreed upon scientific fact. These are seven suggestions...I'm sure everybody can come up with three more. Remember that the public doesn't know the "inside baseball" about climate change. They have never heard about the Wegman report, and don't know who Fred Singer is, nor the Heartland Institute and Oregon Petition (perhaps they've heard of the petition). I would just focus on letting the skeptics deal with their rumors and inuendos, while we take the high road and respond with science. Over time, a mature message born of science, rather than personal attacks, will win. These are my humble thoughts on the matter. Hope this helps, Paul

-----Original Message----- From: Boslough [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 3:42 PM To: Boslough, Mark B Cc: Stephen H Schneider; [email protected]; Thomas Crowley; [email protected]; Dr. Krishna AchutaRao; Myles Allen; Natalia nson; Rick Anthes; Caspar Ammann; David C. Bader; Tim Barnett; Eric 'Bench; Pat Berge; George Boer; Celine J. W. Bonfils; James A.' 'Bono; James Boyle; Ray Bradley; Robin Bravender; Keith Briffa; Wolfgang Brueggemann; Lisa Butler; Ken Caldeira; Peter Caldwell; Dan Cayan; Peter U. Clark; Amy Clement; Nancy Cole; William Collins; Tina Conrad; Curtis Covey; birte dar; Davies Trevor Prof; Jay Davis; Tomas Diaz De La Rubia; Andrew Dessler; Michael' 'Dettinger; Phil Duffy; Paul J.' 'Ehlenbach; Kerry Emanuel; James Estes; Veronika' 'Eyring; David Fahey; Chris Field; Peter Foukal; Melissa Free; Julio Friedmann; Bill Fulkerson; Inez Fung; Jeff Garberson; PETER GENT; Nathan Gillett; peter gleckler; Bill Goldstein; Hal Graboske; Paul Gross; Tom Guilderson; Leopold Haimberger; Alex Hall; James Hansen; harvey; Klaus Hasselmann; Susan Joy Hassol; Gabi Hegerl; Isaac Held; Bob Hirschfeld; Jeremy Hobbs; Dr. Elisabeth A. Holland; Greg Holland; Brian Hoskins; mhughes; James Hurrell; Ken Jackson; c jakob; Gardar Johannesson; Philip D. Jones; Helen Kang; Thomas R Karl; David Karoly; Jeffrey Kiehl; Steve Klein; Knutti Reto; John Lanzante; [email protected]; Ron Lehman; John lewis; Steven A. 'Lloyd (GSFC-610.2)[R S INFORMATION SYSTEMS INC]'; Jane Long; Janice Lough; mann; [email protected]; Linda Mearns; carl mears; Jerry Meehl; Jerry Melillo; George Miller; Norman Miller; Art Mirin; John FB' 'Mitchell; Phil Mote; Neville Nicholls; Gerald R. North; Astrid E.J. Ogilvie; Stephanie Ohshita; Tim Osborn; Stu' 'Ostro; j palutikof; Joyce Penner; Thomas C Peterson; Tom Phillips; David Pierce; [email protected]; V. Ramaswamy; Veerabhadran' 'Ramanathan; Sarah Raper; Phil Rasch; Kathryn Rauhut; Doug Rotman; Terry L. Root; Robert 'Sausen, DLR'; jsanter; John Schellnhuber; David Schimel; Michael Schlesinger; Gavin Schmidt; Christina L. Schomer; Lynda Seaver; Dian J. Seidel; Ted Sheppard; s sherwood; Adrian Simmons; socci anthony; brian soden; Susan Solomon; Ken Sperber; Anne Stark; Thomas Stocker; Ronald J Stouffer; [email protected]; Karl Taylor; claudia tebaldi; Joao P' 'Teixeira; Simon Tett; Thomas A.' 'Tombrello; David Thompson; Lonnie Thompson; ELLEN THOMPSON; Peter' 'Thorne; Mike Wallace; Bud Ward; David 'Warrilow (GA)'; Warren Washington; Andrew Weaver; Michael Wehner; Frank Wentz; Penny' 'Whetton; Dean N. Williams; Gordon Yano; Francis W. Zwiers; Erik M' 'Conway; Sanjay Khanna; Graham Cogley; Jeffrey Kargel; W. Crawford Elliott; John Weyant; Anthony Janetos; Alison' 'Sowden; Vernon Squire; Eric Garen; Peter Cross; Charles Zeller; Ian Murdock; Victoria A Arroyo; Rashida Leonard; Stephanie Fontenoy; John Collee; Sarah-jane Potts; Greg Dutton; Richard B. Rood; Seeley; Oliver Morton; Cheryl_H; Richard' 'Somerville; Martin Kennedy; Heidi Cullen; Shari Bell; Rebecca Bratspies; Pete Myers; Michael Oppenheimer; Tom Wigley; Naomi Oreskes Subject: Top Ten List of denialist misconduct Folks, I'm preparing a presentation for next month's meeting of New Mexicans for Science and Reason. The title is "Hockey Stick Politics: Climategate or Clusterpuck?" (link: http://www.nmsr.org/meetings.htm#latest). I could use some help. One of my main goals is to demonstrate a pattern of mistakes, misrepresentation, misconduct, and outright fraud by denialists. I'm putting together a "Top Ten List" of the examples denialist wrongdoing that if had been done by mainstream scientists would have resulted in calls for firings or worse. The scientific community has not been willing to call out the denialists on this, presumably because we dont consider non-peer-reviewed literature to be worth criticizing. In our world, in which claims are debated in by the rules of science, that would be true. But In the world of climate politics, the non-peer- reviewed sources are given equal or greater weight by the public and by policy makers, and should therefore be a target of intense scientific criticism. Here's the start of my top-ten list. If a mainstream scientist were involved in anything close to one of the items on this list, it would be front-page news and wall-to-wall talk-show fodder, but denialists continue to get a free pass (implying that they are expected to lie and cheat). 1. Plagiarism and misrepresentations in the Wegman Report. At least three pages of Wegman were cribbed with only minor word changes from Bradley's textbook. Even the title of the Wegman Report misrepresents the MBH hockey stick as a global climate reconstruction. Imagine the media reaction if three pages of an IPCC publication were discovered to have been plagiarized. 2. Non-scientists impersonating scientists. The Oregon Petition contains many names of individuals who claim to be scientists, but who in fact are engineers, dentists, pharmacists, veterinarians, etc. It would be a considered an unethical or even criminal act for an unqualified person to masquerade as a member of one of those occupations and to give professional advice under that pretense. It seems that scientists are the only professionals expected to have the humility to allow others to practice their trade without any training or basic understanding. 3. Willful removal of uncertainty bands on the MBH hockey stick graph by Singer et al. in the Non-IPCC report, thereby misrepresenting its purported accuracy. Removing information from a graph when replotting it is unethical, especially when the information removed contradicts the point being made by the party who is criticizing the work. 4. Removal of data from the Sargasso Sea temperature history of Keigwin (1996) and replacement with a fabricated temperature by Robinson et al. (2007). Robinson also replotted Keigwin's data on a shifted time scale, either out of ignorance or willful desire to misrepresent it. The sanitized and time-shifted Keigwin graph was reproduced in the Non-IPCC report and the fabricated data point was used to make the claim that temperatures were higher during the MWP. 5. Jack Schmitt's claim in a 2009 white paper that Artic (sic) sea ice has returned to 1989 levels of coverage. (link: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/decadal/leag/). The fact that this is an obscure paper is irrelevant; Schmitt is associated with the Heartland Institute, and putting false statements into un-reviewed reports is a standard way of meme laundering (as John Mashey puts it). I wrote to Schmitt about this and sent him the NSIDC data, so he is aware that his claim has no factual basis. Nevertheless, he refuses to correct or withdraw the paper. 6. The claim that it has been cooling since 1998. Im not sure who was the first to come up with this (Bob Carter?). We all know that this is climatologically meaningless and contrived to deceive, but non-scientists and gullible journalists think it is important. A statement that it has been warming since 19xx (where xx is any 2-digit number other than 98) is equally true. This kind of cherry picking would be considered criminally fraudulent if it were used to calculate returns on an investment and advertised that way. 7. The claim that, because paleoclimate records show temperature increases lead CO2 concentration increases, then CO2 cannot cause temperatures to rise. Who was the first to make this claim, and why do intelligent people not recognize the obvious logical flaw? Any scientist who makes this argument either incompetent or is intentionally perpetrating fraud. We really need to figure out how to explain this to ordinary people (Richard Alley did it best at AGU, but he was talking to scientists). If anyone has any comments, suggestions, or additions to my list, please let me know. I'm presenting this on April 14. Thanks! Mark Boslough

-- ****************************************************************** Dr.Richard A. Anthes Phone: 303-497-1652 President University Corporation for Atmospheric Research P.O. Box 3000 Boulder, CO 80307-3000 For delivery via express mail, please use:

1850 Table Mesa Drive Boulder, CO 80305 *****************************************************************

1850 Table Mesa Drive Boulder, CO 80305 ***************************************************************** From: Tom Wigley To: [email protected] Cc: Boslough; Boslough, Mark B; Stephen H Schneider [email protected]; Thomas Crowley; Dr. Krishna AchutaRao; Myles Allen; Natalia Andronova; Tim C Atkinson; Rick Anthes; Caspar Ammann; David C. Bader; Tim Barnett; Eric Barron; Graham" "Bench; Pat Berge; George Boer; Celine J. W. Bonfils; James A." "Bono; James Boyle; Ray Bradley; Robin Bravender; Keith Briffa; Wolfgang Brueggemann; Lisa Butler; Ken Caldeira; Peter Caldwell; Dan Cayan; Peter U. Clark; Amy Clement; Nancy Cole; William Collins; Tina Conrad; Curtis Covey; birte dar; Davies Trevor Prof; Jay Davis; Tomas Diaz De La Rubia; Andrew Dessler; Michael" "Dettinger; Phil Duffy; Paul J." "Ehlenbach; Kerry Emanuel; James Estes; Veronika" "Eyring; David Fahey; Chris Field; Peter Foukal; Melissa Free; Julio Friedmann; Bill Fulkerson; Inez Fung; Jeff Garberson; PETER GENT; Nathan Gillett; peter gleckler; Bill Goldstein; Hal Graboske; Paul Gross; Tom Guilderson; Leopold Haimberger; Alex Hall; James Hansen; harvey; Klaus Hasselmann; Susan Joy Hassol; Gabi Hegerl; Isaac Held; Bob Hirschfeld; Jeremy Hobbs; Dr. Elisabeth A. Holland; Greg Holland; Brian Hoskins; mhughes; James Hurrell; Ken Jackson; c jakob; Gardar Johannesson; Philip D. Jones; Helen Kang; Thomas R Karl; David Karoly; Jeffrey Kiehl; Steve Klein; Knutti Reto; John Lanzante; [email protected]; Ron Lehman; John lewis; Steven A. "Lloyd (GSFC-610.2)[R S INFORMATION SYSTEMS INC]"; Jane Long; Janice Lough; mann; [email protected]; Linda Mearns; carl mears; Jerry Meehl; Jerry Melillo; George Miller; Norman Miller; Art Mirin; John FB" "Mitchell; Phil Mote; Neville Nicholls; Gerald R. North; Astrid E.J. Ogilvie; Stephanie Ohshita; Tim Osborn; Stu" "Ostro; j palutikof; Joyce Penner; Thomas C Peterson; Tom Phillips; David Pierce; [email protected]; V. Ramaswamy; Veerabhadran" "Ramanathan; Sarah Raper; Phil Rasch; Kathryn Rauhut; Doug Rotman; Terry L. Root; Robert "Sausen, DLR"; jsanter; John Schellnhuber; David Schimel; Michael Schlesinger; Gavin Schmidt; Christina L. Schomer; Lynda Seaver; Dian J. Seidel; Ted Sheppard; s sherwood; Adrian Simmons; socci anthony; brian soden; Susan Solomon; Ken Sperber; Anne Stark; Thomas Stocker; Ronald J Stouffer; [email protected]; Karl Taylor; claudia tebaldi; Joao P" "Teixeira; Simon Tett; Thomas A." "Tombrello; David Thompson; Lonnie Thompson; ELLEN THOMPSON; Peter" "Thorne; Mike Wallace; Bud Ward; David "Warrilow (GA)"; Warren Washington; Andrew Weaver; Michael Wehner; Frank Wentz; Penny" "Whetton; Dean N. Williams; Gordon Yano; Francis W. Zwiers; Erik M" "Conway; Sanjay Khanna; Graham Cogley; Jeffrey Kargel; W. Crawford Elliott; John Weyant; Anthony Janetos; Alison" "Sowden; Vernon Squire; Eric Garen; Peter Cross; Charles Zeller; Ian Murdock; Victoria A Arroyo; Rashida Leonard; Stephanie Fontenoy; John Collee; Sarah-jane Potts; Greg Dutton; Richard B. Rood; Brien Seeley; Mark Seeley; Oliver Morton; Cheryl H; Richard" "Somerville; Martin Heimann; Don Kennedy; Heidi Cullen; Shari Bell; Rebecca Bratspies; Pete Myers; Michael Oppenheimer; Naomi Oreskes Subject: Re: Top Ten List of denialist misconduct Date: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 1:06:41 AM

I think you'll need a top 20.

Tom.

++++++++++++++++++==

Ben Santer wrote: > Dear Mark, > > I think that the erroneous statistical test used by Professor David > Douglass and colleagues in the 2008 Douglass et al. International > Journal of Climatology (IJoC) paper is very deserving of inclusion on > your "Top Ten List". > > Application of a flawed "robust statistical test" allowed Douglass et > al. to reach the incorrect conclusion that observed tropical temperature > trends are fundamentally inconsistent with the trends simulated by all > climate models. This incorrect conclusion was then disseminated and > amplified by Fox News, the Heartland Institute, Fred Singer's "NIPCC > Report", etc. > > Full details of the statistical errors in the Douglass et al. IJoC paper > are given in one of my previous "Open Letters". > > It is particularly troubling that Douglass et al. have failed to retract > their IJoC paper, or even to publicly acknowledge the existence of > errors in their method of testing the statistical significance of > differences between modeled and observed tropical temperature trends. > > Despite the extraordinary (and incorrect) public claims made on the > basis of the Douglass et al. paper (for example, Fred Singer has used > the paper's findings to claim that "Nature, Not Humans, Rules the > Climate"), the story of how this seriously-flawed paper was published > has received no media scrutiny. This asymmetry is rather ironic. Serious > scientific errors by Douglass et al. are ignored. Spurious claims of > flawed research by "IPCC scientists" are headline news. > > With best regards, > > Ben > Boslough wrote: >> >> Folks, I'm preparing a presentation for next month's meeting of New >> Mexicans for Science and Reason. The title is "Hockey Stick Politics: >> Climategate or Clusterpuck?" (link: >> http://*www.*nmsr.org/meetings.htm#latest). I could use some help. >> >> One of my main goals is to demonstrate a pattern of mistakes, >> misrepresentation, misconduct, and outright fraud by denialists. I'm >> putting together a "Top Ten List" of the examples denialist wrongdoing >> that if had been done by mainstream scientists would have resulted in >> calls for firings or worse. The scientific community has not been >> willing to call out the denialists on this, presumably because we dont >> consider non-peer-reviewed literature to be worth criticizing. In our >> world, in which claims are debated in by the rules of science, that >> would be true. But In the world of climate politics, the >> non-peer-reviewed sources are given equal or greater weight by the >> public and by policy makers, and should therefore be a target of >> intense scientific criticism. >> >> Here's the start of my top-ten list. If a mainstream scientist were >> involved in anything close to one of the items on this list, it would >> be front-page news and wall-to-wall talk-show fodder, but denialists >> continue to get a free pass (implying that they are expected to lie >> and cheat). >> >> 1. Plagiarism and misrepresentations in the Wegman Report. At >> least three pages of Wegman were cribbed with only minor word changes >> from Bradley's textbook. Even the title of the Wegman Report >> misrepresents the MBH hockey stick as a global climate >> reconstruction. Imagine the media reaction if three pages of an IPCC >> publication were discovered to have been plagiarized. >> >> 2. Non-scientists impersonating scientists. The Oregon Petition >> contains many names of individuals who claim to be scientists, but who >> in fact are engineers, dentists, pharmacists, veterinarians, etc. It >> would be a considered an unethical or even criminal act for an >> unqualified person to masquerade as a member of one of those >> occupations and to give professional advice under that pretense. It >> seems that scientists are the only professionals expected to have the >> humility to allow others to practice their trade without any training >> or basic understanding. >> >> 3. Willful removal of uncertainty bands on the MBH hockey stick >> graph by Singer et al. in the Non-IPCC report, thereby misrepresenting >> its purported accuracy. Removing information from a graph when >> replotting it is unethical, especially when the information removed >> contradicts the point being made by the party who is criticizing the >> work. >> >> 4. Removal of data from the Sargasso Sea temperature history of >> Keigwin (1996) and replacement with a fabricated temperature by >> Robinson et al. (2007). Robinson also replotted Keigwin's data on a >> shifted time scale, either out of ignorance or willful desire to >> misrepresent it. The sanitized and time-shifted Keigwin graph was >> reproduced in the Non-IPCC report and the fabricated data point was >> used to make the claim that temperatures were higher during the MWP. >> >> 5. Jack Schmitt's claim in a 2009 white paper that Artic (sic) sea >> ice has returned to 1989 levels of coverage. (link: >> http://*www.*lpi.usra.edu/decadal/leag/). The fact that this is an >> obscure paper is irrelevant; Schmitt is associated with the Heartland >> Institute, and putting false statements into un-reviewed reports is a >> standard way of meme laundering (as John Mashey puts it). I wrote to >> Schmitt about this and sent him the NSIDC data, so he is aware that >> his claim has no factual basis. Nevertheless, he refuses to correct >> or withdraw the paper. >> >> 6. The claim that it has been cooling since 1998. Im not sure who >> was the first to come up with this (Bob Carter?). We all know that >> this is climatologically meaningless and contrived to deceive, but >> non-scientists and gullible journalists think it is important. A >> statement that it has been warming since 19xx (where xx is any 2-digit >> number other than 98) is equally true. This kind of cherry picking >> would be considered criminally fraudulent if it were used to calculate >> returns on an investment and advertised that way. >> >> 7. The claim that, because paleoclimate records show temperature >> increases lead CO2 concentration increases, then CO2 cannot cause >> temperatures to rise. Who was the first to make this claim, and why >> do intelligent people not recognize the obvious logical flaw? Any >> scientist who makes this argument either incompetent or is >> intentionally perpetrating fraud. We really need to figure out how to >> explain this to ordinary people (Richard Alley did it best at AGU, >> but he was talking to scientists). >> >> If anyone has any comments, suggestions, or additions to my list, >> please let me know. I'm presenting this on April 14. >> >> Thanks! >> >> Mark Boslough >> >> >> >> >> > > From: Steven Sherwood To: Paul Gross Cc: [email protected]; Boslough; Boslough Mark B; Stephen H Schneider; [email protected]; Thomas Crowley; [email protected]; Dr. Krishna AchutaRao; Myles Allen; Natalia Andronova; Tim C Atkinson; Caspar Ammann; David C. Bader; Tim Barnett; Eric Barron; Graham" "Bench; Pat Berge; George Boer; Celine J. W. Bonfils; James A." "Bono; James Boyle; Ray Bradley; Robin Bravender; Keith Briffa; Wolfgang Brueggemann; Lisa Butler; Ken Caldeira; Peter Caldwell; Dan Cayan; Peter U. Clark; Amy Clement; Nancy Cole; William Collins; Tina Conrad; Curtis Covey; birte dar; Davies Trevor Prof; Jay Davis; Tomas Diaz De La Rubia; Andrew Dessler; Michael" "Dettinger; Phil Duffy; Paul J." "Ehlenbach; Kerry Emanuel; James Estes; Veronika" "Eyring; David Fahey; Chris Field; Peter Foukal; Melissa Free; Julio Friedmann; Bill Fulkerson; Inez Fung; Jeff Garberson; PETER GENT; Nathan Gillett; peter gleckler; Bill Goldstein; Hal Graboske; Tom Guilderson; Leopold Haimberger; Alex Hall; James Hansen; harvey; Klaus Hasselmann; Susan Joy Hassol; Gabi Hegerl; Isaac Held; Bob Hirschfeld; Jeremy Hobbs; Dr. Elisabeth A. Holland; Greg Holland; Brian Hoskins; mhughes; James Hurrell; Ken Jackson; c jakob; Gardar Johannesson; Philip D. Jones; Helen Kang; Thomas R Karl; David Karoly; Jeffrey Kiehl; Steve Klein; Knutti Reto; John Lanzante; [email protected]; Ron Lehman; John lewis; Steven A. "Lloyd (GSFC-610.2)[R S INFORMATION SYSTEMS INC]"; Jane Long; Janice Lough; mann; [email protected]; Linda Mearns; carl mears; Jerry Meehl; Jerry Melillo; George Miller; Norman Miller; Art Mirin; John FB" "Mitchell; Phil Mote; Neville Nicholls; Gerald R. North; Astrid E.J. Ogilvie; Stephanie Ohshita; Tim Osborn; Stu" "Ostro; j palutikof; Joyce Penner; Thomas C Peterson; Tom Phillips; David Pierce; [email protected]; V. Ramaswamy; Veerabhadran" "Ramanathan; Sarah Raper; Phil Rasch; Kathryn Rauhut; Doug Rotman; Terry L. Root; Robert "Sausen DLR"; jsanter; John Schellnhuber; David Schimel; Michael Schlesinger; Gavin Schmidt; Christina L. Schomer; Lynda Seaver; Dian J. Seidel; Ted Sheppard; Adrian Simmons; socci anthony; brian soden; Susan Solomon; Ken Sperber; Anne Stark; Thomas Stocker; Ronald J Stouffer; [email protected]; Karl Taylor; claudia tebaldi; Joao P" "Teixeira; Simon Tett; Thomas A." "Tombrello; David Thompson; Lonnie Thompson; ELLEN THOMPSON; Peter" "Thorne; Mike Wallace; Bud Ward; David "Warrilow (GA)"; Warren Washington; Andrew Weaver; Michael Wehner; Frank Wentz; Penny" "Whetton; Dean N. Williams; Gordon Yano; Francis W. Zwiers; Erik M" "Conway; Sanjay Khanna; Graham Cogley; Jeffrey Kargel; W. Crawford Elliott; John Weyant; Anthony Janetos; Alison" "Sowden; Vernon Squire; Eric Garen; Peter Cross; Charles Zeller; Ian Murdock; Victoria A Arroyo; Rashida Leonard; Stephanie Fontenoy; John Collee; Sarah-jane Potts; Greg Dutton; Richard B. Rood; Brien Seeley; Mark Seeley; Oliver Morton; Cheryl H; Richard" "Somerville; Martin Heimann; Don Kennedy; Heidi Cullen; Shari Bell; Rebecca Bratspies; Pete Myers; Michael Oppenheimer; Tom Wigley; Naomi Oreskes Subject: Re: talk Date: Monday, March 22, 2010 9:05:03 PM

Paul et al.,

1. I just gave a public talk on Sunday following a somewhat unconventional approach that seemed to work -- I emphasized basic physics, broad context, and parallels to past inconvenient truths. If you or anyone else is interested you can find the slides here (feedback appreciated): http://web.science.unsw.edu.au/%7Estevensherwood/warming II.pdf It is for an Australian audience. I can send Keynote version if anyone wants.

2. More generally, inspired by Tim Barnett's suggestion (new to me), would it be worth starting a clearinghouse (e.g. a wiki) where those of us who do public presentations can share slides, talk ideas, and feedback? The deniers have probably been doing this more than we have. It could be a time-saving resource for those preparing talks, and allow successful communication strategies to spread faster?

(BTW one historical parallel is a guy who made a living for over 20 years convincing people in 19th-century England that the world was flat -- he never convinced any scientists, but won nearly every public "debate" with them and won many converts because he spent years honing his bogus but persuasive pseudoscience arguments while they were busy working...sound familiar?).

Steve

Paul Gross wrote: > > This is outstanding, Rick and, speaking for those of us in the media, we > can really use clear, simple visuals like this. In fact, I'm giving a > talk this Sunday called "The Truth About Global Warming"...I'm going to > use this (and the graph Curt sent me personally in a separate e-mail). > If any of the rest of you have anything I can use to help communicate > the science, please send it along! > > Thanks! > > Paul > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* Rick Anthes [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Monday, March 22, 2010 3:38 PM > *To:* Paul Gross > *Cc:* Boslough; Boslough Mark B; Stephen H Schneider; > [email protected]; Thomas Crowley; > [email protected]; Dr. Krishna AchutaRao; Myles Allen; Natalia > Andronova; Tim C Atkinson; Caspar Ammann; > David C. Bader; Tim Barnett; Eric Barron; Graham' 'Bench; Pat Berge; > George Boer; Celine J. W. Bonfils; James A.' 'Bono; James Boyle; Ray > Bradley; Robin Bravender; Keith Briffa; Wolfgang Brueggemann; Lisa > Butler; Ken Caldeira; Peter Caldwell; Dan Cayan; Peter U. Clark; Amy > Clement; Nancy Cole; William Collins; Tina Conrad; Curtis Covey; > birte dar; Davies Trevor Prof; Jay Davis; Tomas Diaz De La Rubia; > Andrew Dessler; Michael' 'Dettinger; Phil Duffy; Paul J.' > 'Ehlenbach; Kerry Emanuel; James Estes; Veronika' 'Eyring; David > Fahey; Chris Field; Peter Foukal; Melissa Free; Julio Friedmann; > Bill Fulkerson; Inez Fung; Jeff Garberson; PETER GENT; Nathan > Gillett; peter gleckler; Bill Goldstein; Hal Graboske; Tom > Guilderson; Leopold Haimberger; Alex Hall; James Hansen; harvey; > Klaus Hasselmann; Susan Joy Hassol; Gabi Hegerl; Isaac Held; Bob > Hirschfeld; Jeremy Hobbs; Dr. Elisabeth A. Holland; Greg Holland; > Brian Hoskins; mhughes; James Hurrell; Ken Jackson; c jakob; Gardar > Johannesson; Philip D. Jones; Helen Kang; Thomas R Karl; David > Karoly; Jeffrey Kiehl; Steve Klein; Knutti Reto; John Lanzante; > [email protected]; Ron Lehman; John lewis; Steven A. 'Lloyd > (GSFC-610.2)[R S INFORMATION SYSTEMS INC]'; Jane Long; Janice Lough; > mann; [email protected]; Linda Mearns; carl mears; Jerry Meehl; Jerry > Melillo; George Miller; Norman Miller; Art Mirin; John FB' > 'Mitchell; Phil Mote; Neville Nicholls; Gerald R. North; Astrid E.J. > Ogilvie; Stephanie Ohshita; Tim Osborn; Stu' 'Ostro; j palutikof; > Joyce Penner; Thomas C Peterson; Tom Phillips; David Pierce; > [email protected]; V. Ramaswamy; Veerabhadran' 'Ramanathan; > Sarah Raper; Phil Rasch; Kathryn Rauhut; Doug Rotman; Terry L. Root; > Robert 'Sausen DLR'; jsanter; John Schellnhuber; David Schimel; > Michael Schlesinger; Gavin Schmidt; Christina L. Schomer; Lynda > Seaver; Dian J. Seidel; Ted Sheppard; s sherwood; Adrian Simmons; > socci anthony; brian soden; Susan Solomon; Ken Sperber; Anne Stark; > Thomas Stocker; Ronald J Stouffer; [email protected]; Karl > Taylor; claudia tebaldi; Joao P' 'Teixeira; Simon Tett; Thomas A.' > 'Tombrello; David Thompson; Lonnie Thompson; ELLEN THOMPSON; Peter' > 'Thorne; Mike Wallace; Bud Ward; David 'Warrilow (GA)'; Warren > Washington; Andrew Weaver; Michael Wehner; Frank Wentz; Penny' > 'Whetton; Dean N. Williams; Gordon Yano; Francis W. Zwiers; Erik M' > 'Conway; Sanjay Khanna; Graham Cogley; Jeffrey Kargel; W. Crawford > Elliott; John Weyant; Anthony Janetos; Alison' 'Sowden; Vernon > Squire; Eric Garen; Peter Cross; Charles Zeller; Ian Murdock; > Victoria A Arroyo; Rashida Leonard; Stephanie Fontenoy; John Collee; > Sarah-jane Potts; Greg Dutton; Richard B. Rood; > Brien Seeley; Mark Seeley; Oliver Morton; > Cheryl_H; Richard' 'Somerville; Martin Heimann; > Don Kennedy; Heidi Cullen; Shari Bell; Rebecca Bratspies; Pete > Myers; Michael Oppenheimer; Tom Wigley; Naomi Oreskes; Anthes Richard > *Subject:* Re: Top Ten List of denialist misconduct > > I like these simple statements countering common deniers' claims. > The FAQ approach is also pretty effective. Anything that does not > contain long paragraphs and many pages of text--we live in a > sound-byte world. > > In response to a colleague's question to me recently, "if I could > only show one slide to demonstrate global warming and its main > cause, what would that be?" I thought about this and discussed with > Kevin Trenberth, and I came up with the attached three slides. The > one my colleague wanted to use was the third one. I thought one > slide might be too limiting and so I tried "three slides and ten > minutes" to make the case. Here is what I came up with after > looking at hundreds of slides: > > Three slides and Ten Minutes > > If I had only three slides and ten minutes to convince a lay person > that Earth is warming and that increasing greenhouse gases, notably > carbon dioxide, was the primary cause of this warming, these three > are the ones I would show. (View these slides in slide show mode.) > > The first slide is observations only (mean global surface > temperature and CO2). This suggests a correlation, though not > perfect, of increasing CO2 and temperature. The positive > correlation is easily explained by basic physics--no complex models > required. The fact that the temperature increase shows lots of > variability from year to year and even decade to decade on top of > the long-term trend says that other important processes and > phenomena are occurring on time scales of years to decades. These > include natural (internal atmosphere-ocean interactions) > variability, a small effect due to solar variability, emission of > atmospheric aerosols (dust particles and smoke, which actually cause > surface cooling; without them the warming would be greater) and > occasional volcanoes). It also shows that we should not be > surprised when one or two years are colder than the previous few > years, even in a world that is warming overall. > > Slide 2, which shows a nearly monotonic mean global sea level rise, > is very compelling. Global mean sea level is a great integrator--it > doesn't “care” about a cold winter or two in the northeastern US or > Europe, a heavy snowfall in Washington DC , a hot summer in Kansas , > or hurricanes like Katrina. It occurs because of melting glaciers > (ice over land), and the thermal expansion of warming sea water. It > is also easier to measure now with satellites than the global mean > surface temperature. > > Slide 3 shows that models with anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcing > and aerosols in the atmosphere can pretty well explain the observed > surface temperature trend and variability , providing strong > evidence confirming the hypothesis that greenhouse gas increases are > the main cause of global warming, but that other important things > are going on from one year or even decades to the next. > > Rick > > PS--thanks to Kevin for providing these slides. > PPS--If I was restricted to only one slide and 3 minutes I would > probably choose Slide #2. > > Challenges and proposals for alternate slides are welcome, but let's > not go over three! > Rick > > > > Paul Gross wrote: >> Hello Mark, et al, >> >> I'd like to comment on this from the broadcast perspective. As a >> broadcast meteorologist (both a CCM and CBM) who does as much as >> possible to educate the public about global warming (including writing >> an entire chapter about this in my upcoming book about Michigan >> weather), I think I've heard enough of the public's thoughts on the >> matter to offer some suggestions. >> >> First of all, as I believe I mentioned in a previous e-mail several >> months ago, we need to keep the focus on educating through science, >> rather than attacking the skeptics. Inflamatory language, and >> statements directed specifically at skeptics and their practices only >> cause them to dig their heels deeper and fight harder through personal >> attacks upon us scientists. >> >> Your top-ten list should, in my opinion, focus on the ten most-cited >> points made by skeptics, and explain how rigorous science has >> emphatically proved them all wrong. >> >> For example: >> >> 1. Skeptics like to say that solar output changes are responsible for >> the warming. While this may have had a small impact 100 years ago, it >> has NOT been a factor during the unusual warming of the past several >> decades. This is agreed upon scientific fact. >> >> 2. Skeptics like to say that the warming has stopped (since 1998, >> obviously), and the response to this point has already been discussed in >> some of our previous e-mails (plus, some recent global climate models >> actually predict 10-20 year flat periods...but the warming always >> resumes robustly). This is agreed upon scientific fact. >> >> 3. Skeptics like to say that urbanization (urban sprawl) has increased >> the size of the urban heat island effect, and artificially skewed >> temperatures upward. The IPCC specifically researched this, and the >> globally averaged impact from urbanization is only 0.006 degrees >> Celsius. Another key point to remember is that ocean temperatures are >> rapidly increasing too...and there's no urban heat island effect over >> the oceans. This is agreed upon scientific fact. >> >> 4. Skeptics like to say that this is just another one of Earth's >> cycles, and there have been comparable warm periods in the past. While >> it's true that we've been this warm before, those previous warm periods >> all started with changes in the Earth's axis or orbit, which initiated a >> warming that caused a massive GHG release, which then accelerated the >> warming. This time, however, there has been no change in Earth's axis >> or orbit whatsoever...the warming had to be initiated by something else. >> This is agreed upon scientific fact. >> >> 5. Skeptics like to say that our climate models are unreliable. I'd >> rather point out that a climate model is "tested" by seeing how well it >> "predicts" our current warming and, to date, there has not been one >> climate model...not one...that successfully replicates our current >> warming WITHOUT including the anthropogenic GHG component. And besides, >> one of the most agreed upon predictions by climate models was that >> higher latitudes would experience a greater climatic response to the >> increase in GHG...and this most indeed is occurring. This is agreed >> upon scientific fact. >> >> 6. Skeptics like to say that we need more time for research...that >> nothing should be done until we're "sure" about this. I'd respond to >> this by saying that the minimum Arctic ice extent has been at and near >> record lows for each of the past three years. Climate models originally >> predicted this abrupt decline in Arctic ice to occur between 2020 And >> 2030, but we are quite possibly seeing it occurring now. Earth is now >> responding in other ways as well, such as documented thawing of >> permafrost that may release enormous additional GHG into the atmosphere >> and further accelerate the warming, and in well-documented species >> migration. Waiting means that Earth potentially passes critical, >> irreversable tipping points. This is agreed upon scientific fact. >> >> 7. Skeptics like to paint a picture of discord among the scientific >> community. I'd respectfully counter with the fact that there is no >> schism among climate scientists worldwide...most are in agreement about >> the fact that we are warming at a highly unusual and unnatural rate, and >> the proximate cause is anthropogenic GHG. There will always be a few >> radicals with different ideas but, in the end, rigorous, debated science >> always wins out. The cigarette smoking issue cited in a previous e-mail >> is perfect to cite here. And don't forget to cite the 2008 survey >> released by the Statistical Assessment Service at George Mason >> University. Of the 489 Earth and atmospheric scientists surveyed by >> Harris Interactive, 97 percent said that global temperatures have >> increased during the past 100 years, and 74 percent agreed that >> "currently available scientific evidence substantiates the occurrence of >> human-induced greenhouse warming." The findings mark a significant >> increase in concern over climate change since 1991, when a Gallup survey >> of the same universe of scientists showed only 60 percent agreed that >> temperatures were up and 41 percent believed that evidence pointed to >> human activity as the cause. This is agreed upon scientific fact. >> >> These are seven suggestions...I'm sure everybody can come up with three >> more. Remember that the public doesn't know the "inside baseball" about >> climate change. They have never heard about the Wegman report, and >> don't know who Fred Singer is, nor the Heartland Institute and Oregon >> Petition (perhaps they've heard of the petition). I would just focus on >> letting the skeptics deal with their rumors and inuendos, while we take >> the high road and respond with science. Over time, a mature message >> born of science, rather than personal attacks, will win. >> >> These are my humble thoughts on the matter. Hope this helps, >> >> Paul >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Boslough [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 3:42 PM >> To: Boslough, Mark B >> Cc: Stephen H Schneider; ; Thomas >> Crowley; [email protected] ; Dr. Krishna AchutaRao; Myles Allen; Natalia >> Andronova; Tim C Atkinson; Rick Anthes; Caspar Ammann; >> > 'Bench; Pat Berge; George Boer; Celine J. W. Bonfils; James A.' 'Bono; >> James Boyle; Ray Bradley; Robin Bravender; Keith Briffa; Wolfgang >> Brueggemann; Lisa Butler; Ken Caldeira; Peter Caldwell; Dan Cayan; Peter >> U. Clark; Amy Clement; Nancy Cole; William Collins; Tina Conrad; Curtis >> Covey; birte dar; Davies Trevor Prof; Jay Davis; Tomas Diaz De La Rubia; >> Andrew Dessler; Michael' 'Dettinger; Phil Duffy; Paul J.' 'Ehlenbach; >> Kerry Emanuel; James Estes; Veronika' 'Eyring; David Fahey; Chris Field; >> Peter Foukal; Melissa Free; Julio Friedmann; Bill Fulkerson; Inez Fung; >> Jeff Garberson; PETER GENT; Nathan Gillett; peter gleckler; Bill >> Goldstein; Hal Graboske; Paul Gross; Tom Guilderson; Leopold Haimberger; >> Alex Hall; James Hansen; harvey; Klaus Hasselmann; Susan Joy Hassol; >> Gabi Hegerl; Isaac Held; Bob Hirschfeld; Jeremy Hobbs; Dr. Elisabeth A. >> Holland; Greg Holland; Brian Hoskins; mhughes; James Hurrell; Ken >> Jackson; c jakob; Gardar Johannesson; Philip D. Jones; Helen Kang; >> Thomas R Karl; David Karoly; Jeffrey Kiehl; Steve Klein; Knutti Reto; >> John Lanzante; [email protected] ; Ron Lehman; John lewis; Steven A. 'Lloyd >> (GSFC-610.2)[R S INFORMATION SYSTEMS INC]'; Jane Long; Janice Lough; >> mann; [email protected] ; Linda Mearns; carl mears; Jerry Meehl; Jerry >> Melillo; George Miller; Norman Miller; Art Mirin; John FB' 'Mitchell; >> Phil Mote; Neville Nicholls; Gerald R. North; Astrid E.J. Ogilvie; >> Stephanie Ohshita; Tim Osborn; Stu' 'Ostro; j palutikof; Joyce Penner; >> Thomas C Peterson; Tom Phillips; David Pierce; [email protected] ; >> V. Ramaswamy; Veerabhadran' 'Ramanathan; Sarah Raper; Phil Rasch; >> Kathryn Rauhut; Doug Rotman; Terry L. Root; Robert 'Sausen, DLR'; >> jsanter; John Schellnhuber; David Schimel; Michael Schlesinger; Gavin >> Schmidt; Christina L. Schomer; Lynda Seaver; Dian J. Seidel; Ted >> Sheppard; s sherwood; Adrian Simmons; socci anthony; brian soden; Susan >> Solomon; Ken Sperber; Anne Stark; Thomas Stocker; Ronald J Stouffer; >> [email protected] ; Karl Taylor; claudia tebaldi; Joao P' >> 'Teixeira; Simon Tett; Thomas A.' 'Tombrello; David Thompson; Lonnie >> Thompson; ELLEN THOMPSON; Peter' 'Thorne; Mike Wallace; Bud Ward; David >> 'Warrilow (GA)'; Warren Washington; Andrew Weaver; Michael Wehner; Frank >> Wentz; Penny' 'Whetton; Dean N. Williams; Gordon Yano; Francis W. >> Zwiers; Erik M' 'Conway; Sanjay Khanna; Graham Cogley; Jeffrey Kargel; >> W. Crawford Elliott; John Weyant; Anthony Janetos; Alison' 'Sowden; >> Vernon Squire; Eric Garen; Peter Cross; Charles Zeller; Ian Murdock; >> Victoria A Arroyo; Rashida Leonard; Stephanie Fontenoy; John Collee; >> Sarah-jane Potts; Greg Dutton; > Brien Seeley; Mark Seeley; Oliver Morton; > > Kennedy; Heidi Cullen; Shari Bell; Rebecca Bratspies; Pete Myers; >> Michael Oppenheimer; Tom Wigley; Naomi Oreskes >> Subject: Top Ten List of denialist misconduct >> >> >> >> Folks, I'm preparing a presentation for next month's meeting of New >> Mexicans for Science and Reason. The title is "Hockey Stick Politics: >> Climategate or Clusterpuck?" (link: >> http://www.nmsr.org/meetings.htm#latest). I could use some help. >> >> One of my main goals is to demonstrate a pattern of mistakes, >> misrepresentation, misconduct, and outright fraud by denialists. I'm >> putting together a "Top Ten List" of the examples denialist wrongdoing >> that if had been done by mainstream scientists would have resulted in >> calls for firings or worse. The scientific community has not been >> willing >> to call out the denialists on this, presumably because we dont consider >> non-peer-reviewed literature to be worth criticizing. In our world, in >> which claims are debated in by the rules of science, that would be true. >> >> But In the world of climate politics, the non-peer-reviewed sources are >> given equal or greater weight by the public and by policy makers, and >> should therefore be a target of intense scientific criticism. >> >> Here's the start of my top-ten list. If a mainstream scientist were >> involved in anything close to one of the items on this list, it would be >> >> front-page news and wall-to-wall talk-show fodder, but denialists >> continue >> to get a free pass (implying that they are expected to lie and cheat). >> >> 1. Plagiarism and misrepresentations in the Wegman Report. At least >> three pages of Wegman were cribbed with only minor word changes from >> Bradley's textbook. Even the title of the Wegman Report misrepresents >> the >> MBH hockey stick as a global climate reconstruction. Imagine the media >> reaction if three pages of an IPCC publication were discovered to have >> been plagiarized. >> >> 2. Non-scientists impersonating scientists. The Oregon Petition >> contains many names of individuals who claim to be scientists, but who >> in >> fact are engineers, dentists, pharmacists, veterinarians, etc. It would >> >> be a considered an unethical or even criminal act for an unqualified >> person to masquerade as a member of one of those occupations and to give >> >> professional advice under that pretense. It seems that scientists are >> the >> only professionals expected to have the humility to allow others to >> practice their trade without any training or basic understanding. >> >> 3. Willful removal of uncertainty bands on the MBH hockey stick graph >> >> by Singer et al. in the Non-IPCC report, thereby misrepresenting its >> purported accuracy. Removing information from a graph when replotting >> it >> is unethical, especially when the information removed contradicts the >> point being made by the party who is criticizing the work. >> >> 4. Removal of data from the Sargasso Sea temperature history of >> Keigwin >> (1996) and replacement with a fabricated temperature by Robinson et al. >> (2007). Robinson also replotted Keigwin's data on a shifted time scale, >> >> either out of ignorance or willful desire to misrepresent it. The >> sanitized and time-shifted Keigwin graph was reproduced in the Non-IPCC >> report and the fabricated data point was used to make the claim that >> temperatures were higher during the MWP. >> >> 5. Jack Schmitt's claim in a 2009 white paper that Artic (sic) sea >> ice >> has returned to 1989 levels of coverage. (link: >> http://www.lpi.usra.edu/decadal/leag/). The fact that this is an >> obscure >> paper is irrelevant; Schmitt is associated with the Heartland Institute, >> >> and putting false statements into un-reviewed reports is a standard way >> of >> meme laundering (as John Mashey puts it). I wrote to Schmitt about this >> >> and sent him the NSIDC data, so he is aware that his claim has no >> factual >> basis. Nevertheless, he refuses to correct or withdraw the paper. >> >> 6. The claim that it has been cooling since 1998. Im not sure who >> was >> the first to come up with this (Bob Carter?). We all know that this is >> climatologically meaningless and contrived to deceive, but >> non-scientists >> and gullible journalists think it is important. A statement that it has >> >> been warming since 19xx (where xx is any 2-digit number other than 98) >> is >> equally true. This kind of cherry picking would be considered >> criminally >> fraudulent if it were used to calculate returns on an investment and >> advertised that way. >> >> 7. The claim that, because paleoclimate records show temperature >> increases lead CO2 concentration increases, then CO2 cannot cause >> temperatures to rise. Who was the first to make this claim, and why do >> intelligent people not recognize the obvious logical flaw? Any >> scientist >> who makes this argument either incompetent or is intentionally >> perpetrating fraud. We really need to figure out how to explain this to >> >> ordinary people (Richard Alley did it best at AGU, but he was talking >> to >> scientists). >> >> If anyone has any comments, suggestions, or additions to my list, >> please let me know. I'm presenting this on April 14. >> >> Thanks! >> >> Mark Boslough >> >> >> >> > > -- > ****************************************************************** > > Dr.Richard A. Anthes > Phone: 303-497-1652 > > President > University Corporation for Atmospheric Research > P.O. Box 3000 > Boulder, CO 80307-3000 > > For delivery via express mail, please use: > > 1850 Table Mesa Drive > Boulder, CO 80305 > > *****************************************************************

-- Steven Sherwood Professor and Postgraduate Research Coordinator Climate Change Research Centre Level 4, Matthews Building University of New South Wales, Sydney, 2052 Australia [email protected] +61 (2) 9385 8960 From: Paul Gross To: [email protected] Cc: Boslough; Boslough Mark B; Stephen H Schneider; [email protected]; Thomas Crowley; [email protected]; Dr. Krishna AchutaRao; Myles Allen; Natalia Andronova; Tim C Atkinson; Caspar Ammann; David C. Bader; Tim Barnett; Eric Barron; Graham" "Bench; Pat Berge; George Boer; Celine J. W. Bonfils; James A." "Bono; James Boyle; Ray Bradley; Robin Bravender; Keith Briffa; Wolfgang Brueggemann; Lisa Butler; Ken Caldeira; Peter Caldwell; Dan Cayan; Peter U. Clark; Amy Clement; Nancy Cole; William Collins; Tina Conrad; Curtis Covey; birte dar; Davies Trevor Prof; Jay Davis; Tomas Diaz De La Rubia; Andrew Dessler; Michael" "Dettinger; Phil Duffy; Paul J." "Ehlenbach; Kerry Emanuel; James Estes; Veronika" "Eyring; David Fahey; Chris Field; Peter Foukal; Melissa Free; Julio Friedmann; Bill Fulkerson; Inez Fung; Jeff Garberson; PETER GENT; Nathan Gillett; peter gleckler; Bill Goldstein; Hal Graboske; Tom Guilderson; Leopold Haimberger; Alex Hall; James Hansen; harvey; Klaus Hasselmann; Susan Joy Hassol; Gabi Hegerl; Isaac Held; Bob Hirschfeld; Jeremy Hobbs; Dr. Elisabeth A. Holland; Greg Holland; Brian Hoskins; mhughes; James Hurrell; Ken Jackson; c jakob; Gardar Johannesson; Philip D. Jones; Helen Kang; Thomas R Karl; David Karoly; Jeffrey Kiehl; Steve Klein; Knutti Reto; John Lanzante; [email protected]; Ron Lehman; John lewis; Steven A. "Lloyd (GSFC-610.2)[R S INFORMATION SYSTEMS INC]"; Jane Long; Janice Lough; mann; [email protected]; Linda Mearns; carl mears; Jerry Meehl; Jerry Melillo; George Miller; Norman Miller; Art Mirin; John FB" "Mitchell; Phil Mote; Neville Nicholls; Gerald R. North; Astrid E.J. Ogilvie; Stephanie Ohshita; Tim Osborn; Stu" "Ostro; j palutikof; Joyce Penner; Thomas C Peterson; Tom Phillips; David Pierce; [email protected]; V. Ramaswamy; Veerabhadran" "Ramanathan; Sarah Raper; Phil Rasch; Kathryn Rauhut; Doug Rotman; Terry L. Root; Robert "Sausen DLR"; jsanter; John Schellnhuber; David Schimel; Michael Schlesinger; Gavin Schmidt; Christina L. Schomer; Lynda Seaver; Dian J. Seidel; Ted Sheppard; s sherwood; Adrian Simmons; socci anthony; brian soden; Susan Solomon; Ken Sperber; Anne Stark; Thomas Stocker; Ronald J Stouffer; [email protected]; Karl Taylor; claudia tebaldi; Joao P" "Teixeira; Simon Tett; Thomas A." "Tombrello; David Thompson; Lonnie Thompson; ELLEN THOMPSON; Peter" "Thorne; Mike Wallace; Bud Ward; David "Warrilow (GA)"; Warren Washington; Andrew Weaver; Michael Wehner; Frank Wentz; Penny" "Whetton; Dean N. Williams; Gordon Yano; Francis W. Zwiers; Erik M" "Conway; Sanjay Khanna; Graham Cogley; Jeffrey Kargel; W. Crawford Elliott; John Weyant; Anthony Janetos; Alison" "Sowden; Vernon Squire; Eric Garen; Peter Cross; Charles Zeller; Ian Murdock; Victoria A Arroyo; Rashida Leonard; Stephanie Fontenoy; John Collee; Sarah-jane Potts; Greg Dutton; Richard B. Rood; Brien Seeley; Mark Seeley; Oliver Morton; Cheryl H; Richard" "Somerville; Martin Heimann; Don Kennedy; Heidi Cullen; Shari Bell; Rebecca Bratspies; Pete Myers; Michael Oppenheimer; Tom Wigley; Naomi Oreskes Subject: RE: Top Ten List of denialist misconduct Date: Monday, March 22, 2010 3:20:32 PM

This is outstanding, Rick and, speaking for those of us in the media, we can really use clear, simple visuals like this. In fact, I'm giving a talk this Sunday called "The Truth About Global Warming"...I'm going to use this (and the graph Curt sent me personally in a separate e-mail). If any of the rest of you have anything I can use to help communicate the science, please send it along!

Thanks!

Paul

-----Original Message----- From: Rick Anthes [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 3:38 PM To: Paul Gross Cc: Boslough; Boslough Mark B; Stephen H Schneider; [email protected]; Thomas Crowley; [email protected]; Dr. Krishna AchutaRao; Myles Allen; Natalia Andronova; Tim C Atkinson; Caspar Ammann; David C. Bader; Tim Barnett; Eric Barron; Graham' 'Bench; Pat Berge; George Boer; Celine J. W. Bonfils; James A.' 'Bono; James Boyle; Ray Bradley; Robin Bravender; Keith Briffa; Wolfgang Brueggemann; Lisa Butler; Ken Caldeira; Peter Caldwell; Dan Cayan; Peter U. Clark; Amy Clement; Nancy Cole; William Collins; Tina Conrad; Curtis Covey; birte dar; Davies Trevor Prof; Jay Davis; Tomas Diaz De La Rubia; Andrew Dessler; Michael' 'Dettinger; Phil Duffy; Paul J.' 'Ehlenbach; Kerry Emanuel; James Estes; Veronika' 'Eyring; David Fahey; Chris Field; Peter Foukal; Melissa Free; Julio Friedmann; Bill Fulkerson; Inez Fung; Jeff Garberson; PETER GENT; Nathan Gillett; peter gleckler; Bill Goldstein; Hal Graboske; Tom Guilderson; Leopold Haimberger; Alex Hall; James Hansen; harvey; Klaus Hasselmann; Susan Joy Hassol; Gabi Hegerl; Isaac Held; Bob Hirschfeld; Jeremy Hobbs; Dr. Elisabeth A. Holland; Greg Holland; Brian Hoskins; mhughes; James Hurrell; Ken Jackson; c jakob; Gardar Johannesson; Philip D. Jones; Helen Kang; Thomas R Karl; David Karoly; Jeffrey Kiehl; Steve Klein; Knutti Reto; John Lanzante; [email protected]; Ron Lehman; John lewis; Steven A. 'Lloyd (GSFC-610.2)[R S INFORMATION SYSTEMS INC]'; Jane Long; Janice Lough; mann; [email protected]; Linda Mearns; carl mears; Jerry Meehl; Jerry Melillo; George Miller; Norman Miller; Art Mirin; John FB' 'Mitchell; Phil Mote; Neville Nicholls; Gerald R. North; Astrid E.J. Ogilvie; Stephanie Ohshita; Tim Osborn; Stu' 'Ostro; j palutikof; Joyce Penner; Thomas C Peterson; Tom Phillips; David Pierce; [email protected]; V. Ramaswamy; Veerabhadran' 'Ramanathan; Sarah Raper; Phil Rasch; Kathryn Rauhut; Doug Rotman; Terry L. Root; Robert 'Sausen DLR'; jsanter; John Schellnhuber; David Schimel; Michael Schlesinger; Gavin Schmidt; Christina L. Schomer; Lynda Seaver; Dian J. Seidel; Ted Sheppard; s sherwood; Adrian Simmons; socci anthony; brian soden; Susan Solomon; Ken Sperber; Anne Stark; Thomas Stocker; Ronald J Stouffer; [email protected]; Karl Taylor; claudia tebaldi; Joao P' 'Teixeira; Simon Tett; Thomas A.' 'Tombrello; David Thompson; Lonnie Thompson; ELLEN THOMPSON; Peter' 'Thorne; Mike Wallace; Bud Ward; David 'Warrilow (GA)'; Warren Washington; Andrew Weaver; Michael Wehner; Frank Wentz; Penny' 'Whetton; Dean N. Williams; Gordon Yano; Francis W. Zwiers; Erik M' 'Conway; Sanjay Khanna; Graham Cogley; Jeffrey Kargel; W. Crawford Elliott; John Weyant; Anthony Janetos; Alison' 'Sowden; Vernon Squire; Eric Garen; Peter Cross; Charles Zeller; Ian Murdock; Victoria A Arroyo; Rashida Leonard; Stephanie Fontenoy; John Collee; Sarah-jane Potts; Greg Dutton; Richard B. Rood; Brien Seeley; Mark Seeley; Oliver Morton; Cheryl_H; Richard' 'Somerville; Martin Heimann; Don Kennedy; Heidi Cullen; Shari Bell; Rebecca Bratspies; Pete Myers; Michael Oppenheimer; Tom Wigley; Naomi Oreskes; Anthes Richard Subject: Re: Top Ten List of denialist misconduct

In response to a colleague's question to me recently, "if I could only show one slide to demonstrate global warming and its main cause, what would that be? " I thought about this and discussed with Kevin Trenberth, and I came up with the attached three slides. The one my colleague wanted to use was the third one. I thought one slide might be too limiting and so I tried "three slides and ten minutes" to make the case. Here is what I came up with after looking at hundreds of slides:

Three slides and Ten Minutes

Rick

PS--thanks to Kevin for providing these slides. PPS--If I was restricted to only one slide and 3 minutes I would probably choose Slide #2.

Challenges and proposals for alternate slides are welcome, but let's not go over three! Rick

Paul Gross wrote:

Hello Mark, et al, I'd like to comment on this from the broadcast perspective. As a broadcast meteorologist (both a CCM and CBM) who does as much as possible to educate the public about global warming (including writing an entire chapter about this in my upcoming book about Michigan weather), I think I've heard enough of the public's thoughts on the matter to offer some suggestions. First of all, as I believe I mentioned in a previous e-mail several months ago, we need to keep the focus on educating through science, rather than attacking the skeptics. Inflamatory language, and statements directed specifically at skeptics and their practices only cause them to dig their heels deeper and fight harder through personal attacks upon us scientists. Your top-ten list should, in my opinion, focus on the ten most-cited points made by skeptics, and explain how rigorous science has emphatically proved them all wrong. For example: 1. Skeptics like to say that solar output changes are responsible for the warming. While this may have had a small impact 100 years ago, it has NOT been a factor during the unusual warming of the past several decades. This is agreed upon scientific fact. 2. Skeptics like to say that the warming has stopped (since 1998, obviously), and the response to this point has already been discussed in some of our previous e-mails (plus, some recent global climate models actually predict 10-20 year flat periods...but the warming always resumes robustly). This is agreed upon scientific fact. 3. Skeptics like to say that urbanization (urban sprawl) has increased the size of the urban heat island effect, and artificially skewed temperatures upward. The IPCC specifically researched this, and the globally averaged impact from urbanization is only 0.006 degrees Celsius. Another key point to remember is that ocean temperatures are rapidly increasing too...and there's no urban heat island effect over the oceans. This is agreed upon scientific fact. 4. Skeptics like to say that this is just another one of Earth's cycles, and there have been comparable warm periods in the past. While it's true that we've been this warm before, those previous warm periods all started with changes in the Earth's axis or orbit, which initiated a warming that caused a massive GHG release, which then accelerated the warming. This time, however, there has been no change in Earth's axis or orbit whatsoever...the warming had to be initiated by something else. This is agreed upon scientific fact. 5. Skeptics like to say that our climate models are unreliable. I'd rather point out that a climate model is "tested" by seeing how well it "predicts" our current warming and, to date, there has not been one climate model...not one...that successfully replicates our current warming WITHOUT including the anthropogenic GHG component. And besides, one of the most agreed upon predictions by climate models was that higher latitudes would experience a greater climatic response to the increase in GHG...and this most indeed is occurring. This is agreed upon scientific fact. 6. Skeptics like to say that we need more time for research...that nothing should be done until we're "sure" about this. I'd respond to this by saying that the minimum Arctic ice extent has been at and near record lows for each of the past three years. Climate models originally predicted this abrupt decline in Arctic ice to occur between 2020 And 2030, but we are quite possibly seeing it occurring now. Earth is now responding in other ways as well, such as documented thawing of permafrost that may release enormous additional GHG into the atmosphere and further accelerate the warming, and in well-documented species migration. Waiting means that Earth potentially passes critical, irreversable tipping points. This is agreed upon scientific fact. 7. Skeptics like to paint a picture of discord among the scientific community. I'd respectfully counter with the fact that there is no schism among climate scientists worldwide...most are in agreement about the fact that we are warming at a highly unusual and unnatural rate, and the proximate cause is anthropogenic GHG. There will always be a few radicals with different ideas but, in the end, rigorous, debated science always wins out. The cigarette smoking issue cited in a previous e-mail is perfect to cite here. And don't forget to cite the 2008 survey released by the Statistical Assessment Service at George Mason University. Of the 489 Earth and atmospheric scientists surveyed by Harris Interactive, 97 percent said that global temperatures have increased during the past 100 years, and 74 percent agreed that "currently available scientific evidence substantiates the occurrence of human-induced greenhouse warming." The findings mark a significant increase in concern over climate change since 1991, when a Gallup survey of the same universe of scientists showed only 60 percent agreed that temperatures were up and 41 percent believed that evidence pointed to human activity as the cause. This is agreed upon scientific fact. These are seven suggestions...I'm sure everybody can come up with three more. Remember that the public doesn't know the "inside baseball" about climate change. They have never heard about the Wegman report, and don't know who Fred Singer is, nor the Heartland Institute and Oregon Petition (perhaps they've heard of the petition). I would just focus on letting the skeptics deal with their rumors and inuendos, while we take the high road and respond with science. Over time, a mature message born of science, rather than personal attacks, will win. These are my humble thoughts on the matter. Hope this helps, Paul

Folks, I'm preparing a presentation for next month's meeting of New Mexicans for Science and Reason. The title is "Hockey Stick Politics: Climategate or Clusterpuck?" (link: http://www.nmsr.org/meetings.htm#latest). I could use some help. One of my main goals is to demonstrate a pattern of mistakes, misrepresentation, misconduct, and outright fraud by denialists. I'm putting together a "Top Ten List" of the examples denialist wrongdoing that if had been done by mainstream scientists would have resulted in calls for firings or worse. The scientific community has not been willing to call out the denialists on this, presumably because we dont consider non-peer-reviewed literature to be worth criticizing. In our world, in which claims are debated in by the rules of science, that would be true. But In the world of climate politics, the non-peer-reviewed sources are given equal or greater weight by the public and by policy makers, and should therefore be a target of intense scientific criticism. Here's the start of my top-ten list. If a mainstream scientist were involved in anything close to one of the items on this list, it would be front-page news and wall-to-wall talk-show fodder, but denialists continue to get a free pass (implying that they are expected to lie and cheat). 1. Plagiarism and misrepresentations in the Wegman Report. At least three pages of Wegman were cribbed with only minor word changes from Bradley's textbook. Even the title of the Wegman Report misrepresents the MBH hockey stick as a global climate reconstruction. Imagine the media reaction if three pages of an IPCC publication were discovered to have been plagiarized. 2. Non-scientists impersonating scientists. The Oregon Petition contains many names of individuals who claim to be scientists, but who in fact are engineers, dentists, pharmacists, veterinarians, etc. It would be a considered an unethical or even criminal act for an unqualified person to masquerade as a member of one of those occupations and to give professional advice under that pretense. It seems that scientists are the only professionals expected to have the humility to allow others to practice their trade without any training or basic understanding. 3. Willful removal of uncertainty bands on the MBH hockey stick graph by Singer et al. in the Non-IPCC report, thereby misrepresenting its purported accuracy. Removing information from a graph when replotting it is unethical, especially when the information removed contradicts the point being made by the party who is criticizing the work. 4. Removal of data from the Sargasso Sea temperature history of Keigwin (1996) and replacement with a fabricated temperature by Robinson et al. (2007). Robinson also replotted Keigwin's data on a shifted time scale, either out of ignorance or willful desire to misrepresent it. The sanitized and time-shifted Keigwin graph was reproduced in the Non-IPCC report and the fabricated data point was used to make the claim that temperatures were higher during the MWP. 5. Jack Schmitt's claim in a 2009 white paper that Artic (sic) sea ice has returned to 1989 levels of coverage. (link: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/decadal/leag/). The fact that this is an obscure paper is irrelevant; Schmitt is associated with the Heartland Institute, and putting false statements into un-reviewed reports is a standard way of meme laundering (as John Mashey puts it). I wrote to Schmitt about this and sent him the NSIDC data, so he is aware that his claim has no factual basis. Nevertheless, he refuses to correct or withdraw the paper. 6. The claim that it has been cooling since 1998. Im not sure who was the first to come up with this (Bob Carter?). We all know that this is climatologically meaningless and contrived to deceive, but non-scientists and gullible journalists think it is important. A statement that it has been warming since 19xx (where xx is any 2-digit number other than 98) is equally true. This kind of cherry picking would be considered criminally fraudulent if it were used to calculate returns on an investment and advertised that way. 7. The claim that, because paleoclimate records show temperature increases lead CO2 concentration increases, then CO2 cannot cause temperatures to rise. Who was the first to make this claim, and why do intelligent people not recognize the obvious logical flaw? Any scientist who makes this argument either incompetent or is intentionally perpetrating fraud. We really need to figure out how to explain this to ordinary people (Richard Alley did it best at AGU, but he was talking to scientists). If anyone has any comments, suggestions, or additions to my list, please let me know. I'm presenting this on April 14. Thanks! Mark Boslough

1850 Table Mesa Drive Boulder, CO 80305 ***************************************************************** From: Rick Anthes To: Paul Gross Cc: Boslough; Boslough Mark B; Stephen H Schneider; [email protected]; Thomas Crowley; [email protected]; Dr. Krishna AchutaRao; Myles Allen; Natalia Andronova; Tim C Atkinson; Caspar Ammann; David C. Bader; Tim Barnett; Eric Barron; Graham" "Bench; Pat Berge; George Boer; Celine J. W. Bonfils; James A." "Bono; James Boyle; Ray Bradley; Robin Bravender; Keith Briffa; Wolfgang Brueggemann; Lisa Butler; Ken Caldeira; Peter Caldwell; Dan Cayan; Peter U. Clark; Amy Clement; Nancy Cole; William Collins; Tina Conrad; Curtis Covey; birte dar; Davies Trevor Prof; Jay Davis; Tomas Diaz De La Rubia; Andrew Dessler; Michael" "Dettinger; Phil Duffy; Paul J." "Ehlenbach; Kerry Emanuel; James Estes; Veronika" "Eyring; David Fahey; Chris Field; Peter Foukal; Melissa Free; Julio Friedmann; Bill Fulkerson; Inez Fung; Jeff Garberson; PETER GENT; Nathan Gillett; peter gleckler; Bill Goldstein; Hal Graboske; Tom Guilderson; Leopold Haimberger; Alex Hall; James Hansen; harvey; Klaus Hasselmann; Susan Joy Hassol; Gabi Hegerl; Isaac Held; Bob Hirschfeld; Jeremy Hobbs; Dr. Elisabeth A. Holland; Greg Holland; Brian Hoskins; mhughes; James Hurrell; Ken Jackson; c jakob; Gardar Johannesson; Philip D. Jones; Helen Kang; Thomas R Karl; David Karoly; Jeffrey Kiehl; Steve Klein; Knutti Reto; John Lanzante; [email protected]; Ron Lehman; John lewis; Steven A. "Lloyd (GSFC-610.2)[R S INFORMATION SYSTEMS INC]"; Jane Long; Janice Lough; mann; [email protected]; Linda Mearns; carl mears; Jerry Meehl; Jerry Melillo; George Miller; Norman Miller; Art Mirin; John FB" "Mitchell; Phil Mote; Neville Nicholls; Gerald R. North; Astrid E.J. Ogilvie; Stephanie Ohshita; Tim Osborn; Stu" "Ostro; j palutikof; Joyce Penner; Thomas C Peterson; Tom Phillips; David Pierce; [email protected]; V. Ramaswamy; Veerabhadran" "Ramanathan; Sarah Raper; Phil Rasch; Kathryn Rauhut; Doug Rotman; Terry L. Root; Robert "Sausen DLR"; jsanter; John Schellnhuber; David Schimel; Michael Schlesinger; Gavin Schmidt; Christina L. Schomer; Lynda Seaver; Dian J. Seidel; Ted Sheppard; s sherwood; Adrian Simmons; socci anthony; brian soden; Susan Solomon; Ken Sperber; Anne Stark; Thomas Stocker; Ronald J Stouffer; [email protected]; Karl Taylor; claudia tebaldi; Joao P" "Teixeira; Simon Tett; Thomas A." "Tombrello; David Thompson; Lonnie Thompson; ELLEN THOMPSON; Peter" "Thorne; Mike Wallace; Bud Ward; David "Warrilow (GA)"; Warren Washington; Andrew Weaver; Michael Wehner; Frank Wentz; Penny" "Whetton; Dean N. Williams; Gordon Yano; Francis W. Zwiers; Erik M" "Conway; Sanjay Khanna; Graham Cogley; Jeffrey Kargel; W. Crawford Elliott; John Weyant; Anthony Janetos; Alison" "Sowden; Vernon Squire; Eric Garen; Peter Cross; Charles Zeller; Ian Murdock; Victoria A Arroyo; Rashida Leonard; Stephanie Fontenoy; John Collee; Sarah-jane Potts; Greg Dutton; Richard B. Rood; Brien Seeley; Mark Seeley; Oliver Morton Cheryl H; Richard" "Somerville; Martin Heimann; Don Kennedy; Heidi Cullen; Shari Bell; Rebecca Bratspies; Pete Myers; Michael Oppenheimer; Tom Wigley; Naomi Oreskes; Anthes Richard Subject: Re: Top Ten List of denialist misconduct Date: Monday, March 22, 2010 2:39:07 PM Attachments: Just three slides.pptx

Three slides and Ten Minutes

The first slide is observations only (mean global surface temperature and CO2). This suggests a correlation, though not perfect, of increasing CO2 and temperature. The positive correlation is easily explained by basic physics--no complex models required. The fact that the temperature increase shows lots of variability from year to year and even decade to decade on top of the long-term trend says that other important processes and phenomena are occurring on time scales of years to decades. These include natural (internal atmosphere- ocean interactions) variability, a small effect due to solar variability, emission of atmospheric aerosols (dust particles and smoke, which actually cause surface cooling; without them the warming would be greater) and occasional volcanoes). It also shows that we should not be surprised when one or two years are colder than the previous few years, even in a world that is warming overall.

Rick

PS--thanks to Kevin for providing these slides. PPS--If I was restricted to only one slide and 3 minutes I would probably choose Slide #2.

Challenges and proposals for alternate slides are welcome, but let's not go over three! Rick

Paul Gross wrote:

Hello Mark, et al, I'd like to comment on this from the broadcast perspective. As a broadcast meteorologist (both a CCM and CBM) who does as much as possible to educate the public about global warming (including writing an entire chapter about this in my upcoming book about Michigan weather), I think I've heard enough of the public's thoughts on the matter to offer some suggestions. First of all, as I believe I mentioned in a previous e-mail several months ago, we need to keep the focus on educating through science, rather than attacking the skeptics. Inflamatory language, and statements directed specifically at skeptics and their practices only cause them to dig their heels deeper and fight harder through personal attacks upon us scientists. Your top-ten list should, in my opinion, focus on the ten most- cited points made by skeptics, and explain how rigorous science has emphatically proved them all wrong. For example: 1. Skeptics like to say that solar output changes are responsible for the warming. While this may have had a small impact 100 years ago, it has NOT been a factor during the unusual warming of the past several decades. This is agreed upon scientific fact. 2. Skeptics like to say that the warming has stopped (since 1998, obviously), and the response to this point has already been discussed in some of our previous e-mails (plus, some recent global climate models actually predict 10-20 year flat periods...but the warming always resumes robustly). This is agreed upon scientific fact. 3. Skeptics like to say that urbanization (urban sprawl) has increased the size of the urban heat island effect, and artificially skewed temperatures upward. The IPCC specifically researched this, and the globally averaged impact from urbanization is only 0.006 degrees Celsius. Another key point to remember is that ocean temperatures are rapidly increasing too...and there's no urban heat island effect over the oceans. This is agreed upon scientific fact. 4. Skeptics like to say that this is just another one of Earth's cycles, and there have been comparable warm periods in the past. While it's true that we've been this warm before, those previous warm periods all started with changes in the Earth's axis or orbit, which initiated a warming that caused a massive GHG release, which then accelerated the warming. This time, however, there has been no change in Earth's axis or orbit whatsoever...the warming had to be initiated by something else. This is agreed upon scientific fact. 5. Skeptics like to say that our climate models are unreliable. I'd rather point out that a climate model is "tested" by seeing how well it "predicts" our current warming and, to date, there has not been one climate model...not one...that successfully replicates our current warming WITHOUT including the anthropogenic GHG component. And besides, one of the most agreed upon predictions by climate models was that higher latitudes would experience a greater climatic response to the increase in GHG...and this most indeed is occurring. This is agreed upon scientific fact. 6. Skeptics like to say that we need more time for research...that nothing should be done until we're "sure" about this. I'd respond to this by saying that the minimum Arctic ice extent has been at and near record lows for each of the past three years. Climate models originally predicted this abrupt decline in Arctic ice to occur between 2020 And 2030, but we are quite possibly seeing it occurring now. Earth is now responding in other ways as well, such as documented thawing of permafrost that may release enormous additional GHG into the atmosphere and further accelerate the warming, and in well-documented species migration. Waiting means that Earth potentially passes critical, irreversable tipping points. This is agreed upon scientific fact. 7. Skeptics like to paint a picture of discord among the scientific community. I'd respectfully counter with the fact that there is no schism among climate scientists worldwide...most are in agreement about the fact that we are warming at a highly unusual and unnatural rate, and the proximate cause is anthropogenic GHG. There will always be a few radicals with different ideas but, in the end, rigorous, debated science always wins out. The cigarette smoking issue cited in a previous e-mail is perfect to cite here. And don't forget to cite the 2008 survey released by the Statistical Assessment Service at George Mason University. Of the 489 Earth and atmospheric scientists surveyed by Harris Interactive, 97 percent said that global temperatures have increased during the past 100 years, and 74 percent agreed that "currently available scientific evidence substantiates the occurrence of human-induced greenhouse warming." The findings mark a significant increase in concern over climate change since 1991, when a Gallup survey of the same universe of scientists showed only 60 percent agreed that temperatures were up and 41 percent believed that evidence pointed to human activity as the cause. This is agreed upon scientific fact. These are seven suggestions...I'm sure everybody can come up with three more. Remember that the public doesn't know the "inside baseball" about climate change. They have never heard about the Wegman report, and don't know who Fred Singer is, nor the Heartland Institute and Oregon Petition (perhaps they've heard of the petition). I would just focus on letting the skeptics deal with their rumors and inuendos, while we take the high road and respond with science. Over time, a mature message born of science, rather than personal attacks, will win. These are my humble thoughts on the matter. Hope this helps, Paul

1850 Table Mesa Drive Boulder, CO 80305 *****************************************************************

From: Paul Gross To: Boslough; Boslough, Mark B Cc: Stephen H Schneider; [email protected]; Thomas Crowley; [email protected]; Dr. Krishna AchutaRao; Myles Allen; Natalia Andronova; Tim C Atkinson; Rick Anthes; Caspar Ammann; David C. Bader; Tim Barnett; Eric Barron; Graham" "Bench; Pat Berge; George Boer; Celine J. W. Bonfils; James A." "Bono; James Boyle; Ray Bradley; Robin Bravender; Keith Briffa; Wolfgang Brueggemann; Lisa Butler; Ken Caldeira; Peter Caldwell; Dan Cayan; Peter U. Clark; Amy Clement; Nancy Cole; William Collins; Tina Conrad; Curtis Covey; birte dar; Davies Trevor Prof; Jay Davis; Tomas Diaz De La Rubia; Andrew Dessler; Michael" "Dettinger; Phil Duffy; Paul J." "Ehlenbach; Kerry Emanuel; James Estes; Veronika" "Eyring; David Fahey; Chris Field; Peter Foukal; Melissa Free; Julio Friedmann; Bill Fulkerson; Inez Fung; Jeff Garberson; PETER GENT; Nathan Gillett; peter gleckler; Bill Goldstein; Hal Graboske; Tom Guilderson; Leopold Haimberger; Alex Hall; James Hansen; harvey; Klaus Hasselmann; Susan Joy Hassol; Gabi Hegerl; Isaac Held; Bob Hirschfeld; Jeremy Hobbs; Dr. Elisabeth A. Holland; Greg Holland; Brian Hoskins; mhughes; James Hurrell; Ken Jackson; c jakob; Gardar Johannesson; Philip D. Jones; Helen Kang; Thomas R Karl; David Karoly; Jeffrey Kiehl; Steve Klein; Knutti Reto; John Lanzante; [email protected]; Ron Lehman; John lewis; Steven A. "Lloyd (GSFC-610.2)[R S INFORMATION SYSTEMS INC]"; Jane Long; Janice Lough; mann; [email protected]; Linda Mearns; carl mears; Jerry Meehl; Jerry Melillo; George Miller; Norman Miller; Art Mirin; John FB" "Mitchell; Phil Mote; Neville Nicholls; Gerald R. North; Astrid E.J. Ogilvie; Stephanie Ohshita; Tim Osborn; Stu" "Ostro; j palutikof; Joyce Penner; Thomas C Peterson; Tom Phillips; David Pierce; [email protected]; V. Ramaswamy; Veerabhadran" "Ramanathan; Sarah Raper; Phil Rasch; Kathryn Rauhut; Doug Rotman; Terry L. Root; Robert "Sausen, DLR"; jsanter; John Schellnhuber; David Schimel; Michael Schlesinger; Gavin Schmidt; Christina L. Schomer; Lynda Seaver; Dian J. Seidel; Ted Sheppard; s sherwood; Adrian Simmons; socci anthony; brian soden; Susan Solomon; Ken Sperber; Anne Stark; Thomas Stocker; Ronald J Stouffer; [email protected]; Karl Taylor; claudia tebaldi; Joao P" "Teixeira; Simon Tett; Thomas A." "Tombrello; David Thompson; Lonnie Thompson; ELLEN THOMPSON; Peter" "Thorne; Mike Wallace; Bud Ward; David "Warrilow (GA)"; Warren Washington; Andrew Weaver; Michael Wehner; Frank Wentz; Penny" "Whetton; Dean N. Williams; Gordon Yano; Francis W. Zwiers; Erik M" "Conway; Sanjay Khanna; Graham Cogley; Jeffrey Kargel; W. Crawford Elliott; John Weyant; Anthony Janetos; Alison" "Sowden; Vernon Squire; Eric Garen; Peter Cross; Charles Zeller; Ian Murdock; Victoria A Arroyo; Rashida Leonard; Stephanie Fontenoy; John Collee; Sarah-jane Potts; Greg Dutton; Richard B. Rood; Brien Seeley; Mark Seeley; Oliver Morton; Cheryl H; Richard" "Somerville; Martin Heimann; Don Kennedy; Heidi Cullen; Shari Bell; Rebecca Bratspies; Pete Myers; Michael Oppenheimer; Tom Wigley; Naomi Oreskes Subject: RE: Top Ten List of denialist misconduct Date: Monday, March 22, 2010 12:27:07 PM

Hello Mark, et al,

I'd like to comment on this from the broadcast perspective. As a broadcast meteorologist (both a CCM and CBM) who does as much as possible to educate the public about global warming (including writing an entire chapter about this in my upcoming book about Michigan weather), I think I've heard enough of the public's thoughts on the matter to offer some suggestions.

First of all, as I believe I mentioned in a previous e-mail several months ago, we need to keep the focus on educating through science, rather than attacking the skeptics. Inflamatory language, and statements directed specifically at skeptics and their practices only cause them to dig their heels deeper and fight harder through personal attacks upon us scientists.

Your top-ten list should, in my opinion, focus on the ten most-cited points made by skeptics, and explain how rigorous science has emphatically proved them all wrong.

For example:

1. Skeptics like to say that solar output changes are responsible for the warming. While this may have had a small impact 100 years ago, it has NOT been a factor during the unusual warming of the past several decades. This is agreed upon scientific fact.

2. Skeptics like to say that the warming has stopped (since 1998, obviously), and the response to this point has already been discussed in some of our previous e-mails (plus, some recent global climate models actually predict 10-20 year flat periods...but the warming always resumes robustly). This is agreed upon scientific fact.

3. Skeptics like to say that urbanization (urban sprawl) has increased the size of the urban heat island effect, and artificially skewed temperatures upward. The IPCC specifically researched this, and the globally averaged impact from urbanization is only 0.006 degrees Celsius. Another key point to remember is that ocean temperatures are rapidly increasing too...and there's no urban heat island effect over the oceans. This is agreed upon scientific fact.

4. Skeptics like to say that this is just another one of Earth's cycles, and there have been comparable warm periods in the past. While it's true that we've been this warm before, those previous warm periods all started with changes in the Earth's axis or orbit, which initiated a warming that caused a massive GHG release, which then accelerated the warming. This time, however, there has been no change in Earth's axis or orbit whatsoever...the warming had to be initiated by something else. This is agreed upon scientific fact.

5. Skeptics like to say that our climate models are unreliable. I'd rather point out that a climate model is "tested" by seeing how well it "predicts" our current warming and, to date, there has not been one climate model...not one...that successfully replicates our current warming WITHOUT including the anthropogenic GHG component. And besides, one of the most agreed upon predictions by climate models was that higher latitudes would experience a greater climatic response to the increase in GHG...and this most indeed is occurring. This is agreed upon scientific fact.

6. Skeptics like to say that we need more time for research...that nothing should be done until we're "sure" about this. I'd respond to this by saying that the minimum Arctic ice extent has been at and near record lows for each of the past three years. Climate models originally predicted this abrupt decline in Arctic ice to occur between 2020 And 2030, but we are quite possibly seeing it occurring now. Earth is now responding in other ways as well, such as documented thawing of permafrost that may release enormous additional GHG into the atmosphere and further accelerate the warming, and in well-documented species migration. Waiting means that Earth potentially passes critical, irreversable tipping points. This is agreed upon scientific fact.

7. Skeptics like to paint a picture of discord among the scientific community. I'd respectfully counter with the fact that there is no schism among climate scientists worldwide...most are in agreement about the fact that we are warming at a highly unusual and unnatural rate, and the proximate cause is anthropogenic GHG. There will always be a few radicals with different ideas but, in the end, rigorous, debated science always wins out. The cigarette smoking issue cited in a previous e-mail is perfect to cite here. And don't forget to cite the 2008 survey released by the Statistical Assessment Service at George Mason University. Of the 489 Earth and atmospheric scientists surveyed by Harris Interactive, 97 percent said that global temperatures have increased during the past 100 years, and 74 percent agreed that "currently available scientific evidence substantiates the occurrence of human-induced greenhouse warming." The findings mark a significant increase in concern over climate change since 1991, when a Gallup survey of the same universe of scientists showed only 60 percent agreed that temperatures were up and 41 percent believed that evidence pointed to human activity as the cause. This is agreed upon scientific fact.

These are seven suggestions...I'm sure everybody can come up with three more. Remember that the public doesn't know the "inside baseball" about climate change. They have never heard about the Wegman report, and don't know who Fred Singer is, nor the Heartland Institute and Oregon Petition (perhaps they've heard of the petition). I would just focus on letting the skeptics deal with their rumors and inuendos, while we take the high road and respond with science. Over time, a mature message born of science, rather than personal attacks, will win.

These are my humble thoughts on the matter. Hope this helps,

Paul

One of my main goals is to demonstrate a pattern of mistakes, misrepresentation, misconduct, and outright fraud by denialists. I'm putting together a "Top Ten List" of the examples denialist wrongdoing that if had been done by mainstream scientists would have resulted in calls for firings or worse. The scientific community has not been willing to call out the denialists on this, presumably because we dont consider non-peer-reviewed literature to be worth criticizing. In our world, in which claims are debated in by the rules of science, that would be true.

But In the world of climate politics, the non-peer-reviewed sources are given equal or greater weight by the public and by policy makers, and should therefore be a target of intense scientific criticism.

Here's the start of my top-ten list. If a mainstream scientist were involved in anything close to one of the items on this list, it would be front-page news and wall-to-wall talk-show fodder, but denialists continue to get a free pass (implying that they are expected to lie and cheat).

1. Plagiarism and misrepresentations in the Wegman Report. At least three pages of Wegman were cribbed with only minor word changes from Bradley's textbook. Even the title of the Wegman Report misrepresents the MBH hockey stick as a global climate reconstruction. Imagine the media reaction if three pages of an IPCC publication were discovered to have been plagiarized.

2. Non-scientists impersonating scientists. The Oregon Petition contains many names of individuals who claim to be scientists, but who in fact are engineers, dentists, pharmacists, veterinarians, etc. It would be a considered an unethical or even criminal act for an unqualified person to masquerade as a member of one of those occupations and to give professional advice under that pretense. It seems that scientists are the only professionals expected to have the humility to allow others to practice their trade without any training or basic understanding. 3. Willful removal of uncertainty bands on the MBH hockey stick graph by Singer et al. in the Non-IPCC report, thereby misrepresenting its purported accuracy. Removing information from a graph when replotting it is unethical, especially when the information removed contradicts the point being made by the party who is criticizing the work.

4. Removal of data from the Sargasso Sea temperature history of Keigwin (1996) and replacement with a fabricated temperature by Robinson et al. (2007). Robinson also replotted Keigwin's data on a shifted time scale, either out of ignorance or willful desire to misrepresent it. The sanitized and time-shifted Keigwin graph was reproduced in the Non-IPCC report and the fabricated data point was used to make the claim that temperatures were higher during the MWP.

5. Jack Schmitt's claim in a 2009 white paper that Artic (sic) sea ice has returned to 1989 levels of coverage. (link: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/decadal/leag/). The fact that this is an obscure paper is irrelevant; Schmitt is associated with the Heartland Institute, and putting false statements into un-reviewed reports is a standard way of meme laundering (as John Mashey puts it). I wrote to Schmitt about this and sent him the NSIDC data, so he is aware that his claim has no factual basis. Nevertheless, he refuses to correct or withdraw the paper.

6. The claim that it has been cooling since 1998. Im not sure who was the first to come up with this (Bob Carter?). We all know that this is climatologically meaningless and contrived to deceive, but non-scientists and gullible journalists think it is important. A statement that it has been warming since 19xx (where xx is any 2-digit number other than 98) is equally true. This kind of cherry picking would be considered criminally fraudulent if it were used to calculate returns on an investment and advertised that way.

7. The claim that, because paleoclimate records show temperature increases lead CO2 concentration increases, then CO2 cannot cause temperatures to rise. Who was the first to make this claim, and why do intelligent people not recognize the obvious logical flaw? Any scientist who makes this argument either incompetent or is intentionally perpetrating fraud. We really need to figure out how to explain this to ordinary people (Richard Alley did it best at AGU, but he was talking to scientists). If anyone has any comments, suggestions, or additions to my list, please let me know. I'm presenting this on April 14.

Thanks!

Mark Boslough From: Ben Santer To: Boslough Cc: Boslough, Mark B; Stephen H Schneider; [email protected]; Thomas Crowley; Dr. Krishna AchutaRao; Myles Allen; Natalia Andronova; Tim C Atkinson; Rick Anthes; Caspar Ammann; David C. Bader; Tim Barnett; Eric Barron; Graham" "Bench; Pat Berge; George Boer; Celine J. W. Bonfils; James A." "Bono; James Boyle; Ray Bradley; Robin Bravender; Keith Briffa; Wolfgang Brueggemann; Lisa Butler; Ken Caldeira; Peter Caldwell; Dan Cayan; Peter U. Clark; Amy Clement; Nancy Cole; William Collins; Tina Conrad; Curtis Covey; birte dar; Davies Trevor Prof; Jay Davis; Tomas Diaz De La Rubia; Andrew Dessler; Michael" "Dettinger; Phil Duffy; Paul J." "Ehlenbach; Kerry Emanuel; James Estes; Veronika" "Eyring; David Fahey; Chris Field; Peter Foukal; Melissa Free; Julio Friedmann; Bill Fulkerson; Inez Fung; Jeff Garberson; PETER GENT; Nathan Gillett; peter gleckler; Bill Goldstein; Hal Graboske; Paul Gross; Tom Guilderson; Leopold Haimberger; Alex Hall; James Hansen; harvey; Klaus Hasselmann; Susan Joy Hassol; Gabi Hegerl; Isaac Held; Bob Hirschfeld; Jeremy Hobbs; Dr. Elisabeth A. Holland; Greg Holland; Brian Hoskins; mhughes; James Hurrell; Ken Jackson; c jakob; Gardar Johannesson; Philip D. Jones; Helen Kang; Thomas R Karl; David Karoly; Jeffrey Kiehl; Steve Klein; Knutti Reto; John Lanzante; [email protected]; Ron Lehman; John lewis; Steven A. "Lloyd (GSFC-610.2)[R S INFORMATION SYSTEMS INC]"; Jane Long; Janice Lough; mann; [email protected]; Linda Mearns; carl mears; Jerry Meehl; Jerry Melillo; George Miller; Norman Miller; Art Mirin; John FB" "Mitchell; Phil Mote; Neville Nicholls; Gerald R. North; Astrid E.J. Ogilvie; Stephanie Ohshita; Tim Osborn; Stu" "Ostro; j palutikof; Joyce Penner; Thomas C Peterson; Tom Phillips; David Pierce; [email protected]; V. Ramaswamy; Veerabhadran" "Ramanathan; Sarah Raper; Phil Rasch; Kathryn Rauhut; Doug Rotman; Terry L. Root; Robert "Sausen, DLR"; jsanter; John Schellnhuber; David Schimel; Michael Schlesinger; Gavin Schmidt; Christina L. Schomer; Lynda Seaver; Dian J. Seidel; Ted Sheppard; s sherwood; Adrian Simmons; socci anthony; brian soden; Susan Solomon; Ken Sperber; Anne Stark; Thomas Stocker; Ronald J Stouffer; [email protected]; Karl Taylor; claudia tebaldi; Joao P" "Teixeira; Simon Tett; Thomas A." "Tombrello; David Thompson; Lonnie Thompson; ELLEN THOMPSON; Peter" "Thorne; Mike Wallace; Bud Ward; David "Warrilow (GA)"; Warren Washington; Andrew Weaver; Michael Wehner; Frank Wentz; Penny" "Whetton; Dean N. Williams; Gordon Yano; Francis W. Zwiers; Erik M" "Conway; Sanjay Khanna; Graham Cogley; Jeffrey Kargel; W. Crawford Elliott; John Weyant; Anthony Janetos; Alison" "Sowden; Vernon Squire; Eric Garen; Peter Cross; Charles Zeller; Ian Murdock; Victoria A Arroyo; Rashida Leonard; Stephanie Fontenoy; John Collee; Sarah-jane Potts; Greg Dutton; Richard B. Rood; Brien Seeley; Mark Seeley; Oliver Morton; Cheryl H; Richard" "Somerville; Martin Heimann; Don Kennedy; Heidi Cullen; Shari Bell; Rebecca Bratspies; Pete Myers; Michael Oppenheimer; Tom Wigley; Naomi Oreskes Subject: Re: Top Ten List of denialist misconduct Date: Monday, March 22, 2010 12:26:23 PM

Dear Mark,

I think that the erroneous statistical test used by Professor David Douglass and colleagues in the 2008 Douglass et al. International Journal of Climatology (IJoC) paper is very deserving of inclusion on your "Top Ten List".

Application of a flawed "robust statistical test" allowed Douglass et al. to reach the incorrect conclusion that observed tropical temperature trends are fundamentally inconsistent with the trends simulated by all climate models. This incorrect conclusion was then disseminated and amplified by Fox News, the Heartland Institute, Fred Singer's "NIPCC Report", etc.

Full details of the statistical errors in the Douglass et al. IJoC paper are given in one of my previous "Open Letters".

It is particularly troubling that Douglass et al. have failed to retract their IJoC paper, or even to publicly acknowledge the existence of errors in their method of testing the statistical significance of differences between modeled and observed tropical temperature trends.

Despite the extraordinary (and incorrect) public claims made on the basis of the Douglass et al. paper (for example, Fred Singer has used the paper's findings to claim that "Nature, Not Humans, Rules the Climate"), the story of how this seriously-flawed paper was published has received no media scrutiny. This asymmetry is rather ironic. Serious scientific errors by Douglass et al. are ignored. Spurious claims of flawed research by "IPCC scientists" are headline news.

With best regards,

Ben Boslough wrote: > > Folks, I'm preparing a presentation for next month's meeting of New > Mexicans for Science and Reason. The title is "Hockey Stick Politics: > Climategate or Clusterpuck?" (link: > http://*www.*nmsr.org/meetings.htm#latest). I could use some help. > > One of my main goals is to demonstrate a pattern of mistakes, > misrepresentation, misconduct, and outright fraud by denialists. I'm > putting together a "Top Ten List" of the examples denialist wrongdoing > that if had been done by mainstream scientists would have resulted in > calls for firings or worse. The scientific community has not been > willing to call out the denialists on this, presumably because we dont > consider non-peer-reviewed literature to be worth criticizing. In our > world, in which claims are debated in by the rules of science, that > would be true. But In the world of climate politics, the > non-peer-reviewed sources are given equal or greater weight by the > public and by policy makers, and should therefore be a target of intense > scientific criticism. > > Here's the start of my top-ten list. If a mainstream scientist were > involved in anything close to one of the items on this list, it would be > front-page news and wall-to-wall talk-show fodder, but denialists > continue to get a free pass (implying that they are expected to lie and > cheat). > > 1. Plagiarism and misrepresentations in the Wegman Report. At least > three pages of Wegman were cribbed with only minor word changes from > Bradley's textbook. Even the title of the Wegman Report misrepresents > the MBH hockey stick as a global climate reconstruction. Imagine the > media reaction if three pages of an IPCC publication were discovered to > have been plagiarized. > > 2. Non-scientists impersonating scientists. The Oregon Petition > contains many names of individuals who claim to be scientists, but who > in fact are engineers, dentists, pharmacists, veterinarians, etc. It > would be a considered an unethical or even criminal act for an > unqualified person to masquerade as a member of one of those occupations > and to give professional advice under that pretense. It seems that > scientists are the only professionals expected to have the humility to > allow others to practice their trade without any training or basic > understanding. > > 3. Willful removal of uncertainty bands on the MBH hockey stick graph > by Singer et al. in the Non-IPCC report, thereby misrepresenting its > purported accuracy. Removing information from a graph when replotting > it is unethical, especially when the information removed contradicts the > point being made by the party who is criticizing the work. > > 4. Removal of data from the Sargasso Sea temperature history of > Keigwin (1996) and replacement with a fabricated temperature by Robinson > et al. (2007). Robinson also replotted Keigwin's data on a shifted time > scale, either out of ignorance or willful desire to misrepresent it. > The sanitized and time-shifted Keigwin graph was reproduced in the > Non-IPCC report and the fabricated data point was used to make the claim > that temperatures were higher during the MWP. > > 5. Jack Schmitt's claim in a 2009 white paper that Artic (sic) sea > ice has returned to 1989 levels of coverage. (link: > http://*www.*lpi.usra.edu/decadal/leag/). The fact that this is an > obscure paper is irrelevant; Schmitt is associated with the Heartland > Institute, and putting false statements into un-reviewed reports is a > standard way of meme laundering (as John Mashey puts it). I wrote to > Schmitt about this and sent him the NSIDC data, so he is aware that his > claim has no factual basis. Nevertheless, he refuses to correct or > withdraw the paper. > > 6. The claim that it has been cooling since 1998. Im not sure who > was the first to come up with this (Bob Carter?). We all know that this > is climatologically meaningless and contrived to deceive, but > non-scientists and gullible journalists think it is important. A > statement that it has been warming since 19xx (where xx is any 2-digit > number other than 98) is equally true. This kind of cherry picking > would be considered criminally fraudulent if it were used to calculate > returns on an investment and advertised that way. > > 7. The claim that, because paleoclimate records show temperature > increases lead CO2 concentration increases, then CO2 cannot cause > temperatures to rise. Who was the first to make this claim, and why do > intelligent people not recognize the obvious logical flaw? Any > scientist who makes this argument either incompetent or is intentionally > perpetrating fraud. We really need to figure out how to explain this to > ordinary people (Richard Alley did it best at AGU, but he was talking > to scientists). > > If anyone has any comments, suggestions, or additions to my list, please > let me know. I'm presenting this on April 14. > > Thanks! > > Mark Boslough > > > > >

------Benjamin D. Santer Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103 Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A. Tel: (925) 422-3840 FAX: (925) 422-7675 email: [email protected] ------From: Tim Barnett To: Boslough Cc: Boslough, Mark B; Stephen H Schneider; [email protected]; Thomas Crowley; [email protected]; Dr. Krishna AchutaRao; Myles Allen; Natalia Andronova; Tim C Atkinson; Rick Anthes; Caspar Ammann; David C. Bader; Tim Barnett; Eric Barron; Graham" "Bench; Pat Berge; George Boer; Celine J. W. Bonfils; James A." "Bono; James Boyle; Ray Bradley; Robin Bravender; Keith Briffa; Wolfgang Brueggemann; Lisa Butler; Ken Caldeira; Peter Caldwell; Dan Cayan; Peter U. Clark; Amy Clement; Nancy Cole; William Collins; Tina Conrad; Curtis Covey; birte dar; Davies Trevor Prof; Jay Davis; Tomas Diaz De La Rubia; Andrew Dessler; Michael" "Dettinger; Phil Duffy; Paul J." "Ehlenbach; Kerry Emanuel; James Estes; Veronika" "Eyring; David Fahey; Chris Field; Peter Foukal; Melissa Free; Julio Friedmann; Bill Fulkerson; Inez Fung; Jeff Garberson; PETER GENT; Nathan Gillett; peter gleckler; Bill Goldstein; Hal Graboske; Paul Gross; Tom Guilderson; Leopold Haimberger; Alex Hall; James Hansen; harvey; Klaus Hasselmann; Susan Joy Hassol; Gabi Hegerl; Isaac Held; Bob Hirschfeld; Jeremy Hobbs; Dr. Elisabeth A. Holland; Greg Holland; Brian Hoskins; mhughes; James Hurrell; Ken Jackson; c jakob; Gardar Johannesson; Philip D. Jones; Helen Kang; Thomas R Karl; David Karoly; Jeffrey Kiehl; Steve Klein; Knutti Reto; John Lanzante; [email protected]; Ron Lehman; John lewis; Steven A. "Lloyd [R S INFORMATION SYSTEMS INC]"; Jane Long; Janice Lough; mann; [email protected]; Linda Mearns; carl mears; Jerry Meehl; Jerry Melillo; George Miller; Norman Miller; Art Mirin; John FB" "Mitchell; Phil Mote; Neville Nicholls; Gerald R. North; Astrid E.J. Ogilvie; Stephanie Ohshita; Tim Osborn; Stu" "Ostro; j palutikof; Joyce Penner; Thomas C Peterson; Tom Phillips; David Pierce; [email protected]; V. Ramaswamy; Veerabhadran" "Ramanathan; Sarah Raper; Phil Rasch; Kathryn Rauhut; Doug Rotman; Terry L. Root; Robert "Sausen, DLR"; jsanter; John Schellnhuber; David Schimel; Michael Schlesinger; Gavin Schmidt; Christina L. Schomer; Lynda Seaver; Dian J. Seidel; Ted Sheppard; s sherwood; Adrian Simmons; socci anthony; brian soden; Susan Solomon; Ken Sperber; Anne Stark; Thomas Stocker; Ronald J Stouffer; [email protected]; Karl Taylor; claudia tebaldi; Joao P" "Teixeira; Simon Tett; Thomas A." "Tombrello; David Thompson; Lonnie Thompson; ELLEN THOMPSON; Peter" "Thorne; Mike Wallace; Bud Ward; David "Warrilow "; Warren Washington; Andrew Weaver; Michael Wehner; Frank Wentz; Penny" "Whetton; Dean N. Williams; Gordon Yano; Francis W. Zwiers; Erik M" "Conway; Sanjay Khanna; Graham Cogley; Jeffrey Kargel; W. Crawford Elliott; John Weyant; Anthony Janetos; Alison" "Sowden; Vernon Squire; Eric Garen; Peter Cross; Charles Zeller; Ian Murdock; Victoria A Arroyo; Rashida Leonard; Stephanie Fontenoy; John Collee; Sarah-jane Potts; Greg Dutton; Richard B. Rood; Brien Seeley; Mark Seeley; Oliver Morton; Cheryl H; Richard" "Somerville; Martin Heimann; Don Kennedy; Heidi Cullen; Shari Bell; Rebecca Bratspies; Pete Myers; Michael Oppenheimer; Tom Wigley; Naomi Oreskes Subject: Re: Top Ten List of denialist misconduct Date: Monday, March 22, 2010 11:03:33 AM

mark...you and others, if not aware of it already, ought to check out the two books by ross gelbspan in the 1990s for a then current expose of how the skeptics do business. even better, check out 'exxonsecrets.org'. this is a greenpeace funded operation. it is essentiually a skeptics organizational chart. you can construct wiring diagrams for any person/business/front and even follow the money. i often show the wiring diagrams in public talks and the response from the audience is rewarding...they realize they are being duped by complex multi nationals. good luck, tim

> > Folks, I'm preparing a presentation for next month's meeting of New > Mexicans for Science and Reason. The title is "Hockey Stick Politics: > Climategate or Clusterpuck?" (link: > http://www.nmsr.org/meetings.htm#latest). I could use some help. > > One of my main goals is to demonstrate a pattern of mistakes, > misrepresentation, misconduct, and outright fraud by denialists. I'm > putting together a "Top Ten List" of the examples denialist wrongdoing > that if had been done by mainstream scientists would have resulted in > calls for firings or worse. The scientific community has not been willing > to call out the denialists on this, presumably because we dont consider > non-peer-reviewed literature to be worth criticizing. In our world, in > which claims are debated in by the rules of science, that would be true. > But In the world of climate politics, the non-peer-reviewed sources are > given equal or greater weight by the public and by policy makers, and > should therefore be a target of intense scientific criticism. > > Here's the start of my top-ten list. If a mainstream scientist were > involved in anything close to one of the items on this list, it would be > front-page news and wall-to-wall talk-show fodder, but denialists continue > to get a free pass (implying that they are expected to lie and cheat). > > 1. Plagiarism and misrepresentations in the Wegman Report. At least > three pages of Wegman were cribbed with only minor word changes from > Bradley's textbook. Even the title of the Wegman Report misrepresents the > MBH hockey stick as a global climate reconstruction. Imagine the media > reaction if three pages of an IPCC publication were discovered to have > been plagiarized. > > 2. Non-scientists impersonating scientists. The Oregon Petition > contains many names of individuals who claim to be scientists, but who in > fact are engineers, dentists, pharmacists, veterinarians, etc. It would > be a considered an unethical or even criminal act for an unqualified > person to masquerade as a member of one of those occupations and to give > professional advice under that pretense. It seems that scientists are the > only professionals expected to have the humility to allow others to > practice their trade without any training or basic understanding. > > 3. Willful removal of uncertainty bands on the MBH hockey stick graph > by Singer et al. in the Non-IPCC report, thereby misrepresenting its > purported accuracy. Removing information from a graph when replotting it > is unethical, especially when the information removed contradicts the > point being made by the party who is criticizing the work. > > 4. Removal of data from the Sargasso Sea temperature history of Keigwin > (1996) and replacement with a fabricated temperature by Robinson et al. > (2007). Robinson also replotted Keigwin's data on a shifted time scale, > either out of ignorance or willful desire to misrepresent it. The > sanitized and time-shifted Keigwin graph was reproduced in the Non-IPCC > report and the fabricated data point was used to make the claim that > temperatures were higher during the MWP. > > 5. Jack Schmitt's claim in a 2009 white paper that Artic (sic) sea ice > has returned to 1989 levels of coverage. (link: > http://www.lpi.usra.edu/decadal/leag/). The fact that this is an obscure > paper is irrelevant; Schmitt is associated with the Heartland Institute, > and putting false statements into un-reviewed reports is a standard way of > meme laundering (as John Mashey puts it). I wrote to Schmitt about this > and sent him the NSIDC data, so he is aware that his claim has no factual > basis. Nevertheless, he refuses to correct or withdraw the paper. > > 6. The claim that it has been cooling since 1998. Im not sure who was > the first to come up with this (Bob Carter?). We all know that this is > climatologically meaningless and contrived to deceive, but non-scientists > and gullible journalists think it is important. A statement that it has > been warming since 19xx (where xx is any 2-digit number other than 98) is > equally true. This kind of cherry picking would be considered criminally > fraudulent if it were used to calculate returns on an investment and > advertised that way. > > 7. The claim that, because paleoclimate records show temperature > increases lead CO2 concentration increases, then CO2 cannot cause > temperatures to rise. Who was the first to make this claim, and why do > intelligent people not recognize the obvious logical flaw? Any scientist > who makes this argument either incompetent or is intentionally > perpetrating fraud. We really need to figure out how to explain this to > ordinary people (Richard Alley did it best at AGU, but he was talking to > scientists). > > If anyone has any comments, suggestions, or additions to my list, > please let me know. I'm presenting this on April 14. > > Thanks! > > Mark Boslough > > > > > From: Tim Osborn To: Boslough Cc: Stephen H Schneider; [email protected]; Thomas Crowley; [email protected]; Dr. Krishna AchutaRao; Myles Allen; Natalia Andronova; Tim C Atkinson; Rick Anthes; Caspar Ammann; David C. Bader; Tim Barnett; Eric Barron; Graham" "Bench; Pat Berge; George Boer; Celine J. W. Bonfils; James A." "Bono; James Boyle; Ray Bradley; Robin Bravender; Keith Briffa; Wolfgang Brueggemann; Lisa Butler; Ken Caldeira; Peter Caldwell; Dan Cayan; Peter U. Clark; Amy Clement; Nancy Cole; William Collins; Tina Conrad; Curtis Covey; birte dar; Davies Trevor Prof; Jay Davis; Tomas Diaz De La Rubia; Andrew Dessler; Michael" "Dettinger; Phil Duffy; Paul J." "Ehlenbach; Kerry Emanuel; James Estes; Veronika" "Eyring; David Fahey; Chris Field; Peter Foukal; Melissa Free; Julio Friedmann; Bill Fulkerson; Inez Fung; Jeff Garberson; PETER GENT; Nathan Gillett; peter gleckler; Bill Goldstein; Hal Graboske; Paul Gross; Tom Guilderson; Leopold Haimberger; Alex Hall; James Hansen; harvey; Klaus Hasselmann; Susan Joy Hassol; Gabi Hegerl; Isaac Held; Bob Hirschfeld; Jeremy Hobbs; Dr. Elisabeth A. Holland; Greg Holland; Brian Hoskins; mhughes; James Hurrell; Ken Jackson; c jakob; Gardar Johannesson; Philip D. Jones; Helen Kang; Thomas R Karl; David Karoly; Jeffrey Kiehl; Steve Klein; Knutti Reto; John Lanzante; [email protected]; Ron Lehman; John lewis; Steven A. "Lloyd (GSFC-610.2)[R S INFORMATION SYSTEMS INC]"; Jane Long; Janice Lough; mann; [email protected]; Linda Mearns; carl mears; Jerry Meehl; Jerry Melillo; George Miller; Norman Miller; Art Mirin; John FB" "Mitchell; Phil Mote; Neville Nicholls; Gerald R. North; Astrid E.J. Ogilvie; Stephanie Ohshita; Stu" "Ostro; j palutikof; Joyce Penner; Thomas C Peterson; Tom Phillips; David Pierce; [email protected]; V. Ramaswamy; Veerabhadran" "Ramanathan; Sarah Raper; Phil Rasch; Kathryn Rauhut; Doug Rotman; Terry L. Root; Robert "Sausen, DLR"; jsanter; John Schellnhuber; David Schimel; Michael Schlesinger; Gavin Schmidt; Christina L. Schomer; Lynda Seaver; Dian J. Seidel; Ted Sheppard; s sherwood; Adrian Simmons; socci anthony; brian soden; Susan Solomon; Ken Sperber; Anne Stark; Thomas Stocker; Ronald J Stouffer; [email protected]; Karl Taylor; claudia tebaldi; Joao P" "Teixeira; Simon Tett; Thomas A." "Tombrello; David Thompson; Lonnie Thompson; ELLEN THOMPSON; Peter" "Thorne; Mike Wallace; Bud Ward; David "Warrilow (GA)"; Warren Washington; Andrew Weaver; Michael Wehner; Frank Wentz; Penny" "Whetton; Dean N. Williams; Gordon Yano; Francis W. Zwiers; Erik M" "Conway; Sanjay Khanna; Graham Cogley; Jeffrey Kargel; W. Crawford Elliott; John Weyant; Anthony Janetos; Alison" "Sowden; Vernon Squire; Eric Garen; Peter Cross; Charles Zeller; Ian Murdock; Victoria A Arroyo; Rashida Leonard; Stephanie Fontenoy; John Collee; Sarah-jane Potts; Greg Dutton; Richard B. Rood; Brien Seeley; Mark Seeley; Oliver Morton; Cheryl H; Richard" "Somerville; Martin Heimann; Don Kennedy; Heidi Cullen; Shari Bell; Rebecca Bratspies; Pete Myers; Michael Oppenheimer; Tom Wigley; Naomi Oreskes Subject: Re: Top Ten List of denialist misconduct Date: Monday, March 22, 2010 5:02:38 AM

Dear Mark,

I don't know how one would prioritise things as in or out of the top 10, but here's one you might consider:

Global Warming Policy Foundation show the global mean temperature record only from 2001 onwards on their homepage (top left): In effect, they are "hiding the warming" by excluding the entire 20th century temperature record. While at the same time, the Chairman of GWPF Lord Lawson repeatedly criticises the "hide the decline" email.

Is it reasonable to hide over 100 years of measured warming while criticising the removal of some tree-ring density data during a period when we know that they do not represent temperature? And note that the decline/divergence *was* shown in many publications: e.g. Figure 2 of Briffa et al. (1998a); Figure 1 of Briffa et al. (1998b); Plate 2 and Figures 4, 5 and 6 of Briffa et al. (2001); Figures 11 and 12 of Briffa et al. (2002); and Figures 5, 6 and 7 of Briffa et al. (2004). Hardly hidden.

More on this here: And transcript of Lawson's evidence here:

Cheers Tim

At 19:42 20/03/2010, Boslough wrote:

>Folks, I'm preparing a presentation for next month's meeting of New >Mexicans for Science and Reason. The title is "Hockey Stick >Politics: Climategate or Clusterpuck?" (link: >http://www.nmsr.org/meetings.htm#latest). I could use some help. > >One of my main goals is to demonstrate a pattern of mistakes, >misrepresentation, misconduct, and outright fraud by >denialists. I'm putting together a "Top Ten List" of the examples >denialist wrongdoing that if had been done by mainstream scientists >would have resulted in calls for firings or worse. The scientific >community has not been willing to call out the denialists on this, >presumably because we dont consider non-peer-reviewed literature to >be worth criticizing. In our world, in which claims are debated in >by the rules of science, that would be true. But In the world of >climate politics, the non-peer-reviewed sources are given equal or >greater weight by the public and by policy makers, and should >therefore be a target of intense scientific criticism. > >Here's the start of my top-ten list. If a mainstream scientist were >involved in anything close to one of the items on this list, it >would be front-page news and wall-to-wall talk-show fodder, but >denialists continue to get a free pass (implying that they are >expected to lie and cheat). > >1. Plagiarism and misrepresentations in the Wegman Report. At >least three pages of Wegman were cribbed with only minor word >changes from Bradley's textbook. Even the title of the Wegman >Report misrepresents the MBH hockey stick as a global climate >reconstruction. Imagine the media reaction if three pages of an >IPCC publication were discovered to have been plagiarized. > >2. Non-scientists impersonating scientists. The Oregon Petition >contains many names of individuals who claim to be scientists, but >who in fact are engineers, dentists, pharmacists, veterinarians, >etc. It would be a considered an unethical or even criminal act for >an unqualified person to masquerade as a member of one of those >occupations and to give professional advice under that pretense. It >seems that scientists are the only professionals expected to have >the humility to allow others to practice their trade without any >training or basic understanding. > >3. Willful removal of uncertainty bands on the MBH hockey stick >graph by Singer et al. in the Non-IPCC report, thereby >misrepresenting its purported accuracy. Removing information from a >graph when replotting it is unethical, especially when the >information removed contradicts the point being made by the party >who is criticizing the work. > >4. Removal of data from the Sargasso Sea temperature history of >Keigwin (1996) and replacement with a fabricated temperature by >Robinson et al. (2007). Robinson also replotted Keigwin's data on a >shifted time scale, either out of ignorance or willful desire to >misrepresent it. The sanitized and time-shifted Keigwin graph was >reproduced in the Non-IPCC report and the fabricated data point was >used to make the claim that temperatures were higher during the MWP. > >5. Jack Schmitt's claim in a 2009 white paper that Artic (sic) >sea ice has returned to 1989 levels of coverage. (link: >http://www.lpi.usra.edu/decadal/leag/). The fact that this is an >obscure paper is irrelevant; Schmitt is associated with the >Heartland Institute, and putting false statements into un-reviewed >reports is a standard way of meme laundering (as John Mashey puts >it). I wrote to Schmitt about this and sent him the NSIDC data, so >he is aware that his claim has no factual basis. Nevertheless, he >refuses to correct or withdraw the paper. > >6. The claim that it has been cooling since 1998. Im not sure >who was the first to come up with this (Bob Carter?). We all know >that this is climatologically meaningless and contrived to deceive, >but non-scientists and gullible journalists think it is >important. A statement that it has been warming since 19xx (where >xx is any 2-digit number other than 98) is equally true. This kind >of cherry picking would be considered criminally fraudulent if it >were used to calculate returns on an investment and advertised that way. > >7. The claim that, because paleoclimate records show temperature >increases lead CO2 concentration increases, then CO2 cannot cause >temperatures to rise. Who was the first to make this claim, and why >do intelligent people not recognize the obvious logical flaw? Any >scientist who makes this argument either incompetent or is >intentionally perpetrating fraud. We really need to figure out how >to explain this to ordinary people (Richard Alley did it best at >AGU, but he was talking to scientists). > >If anyone has any comments, suggestions, or additions to my list, >please let me know. I'm presenting this on April 14. > >Thanks! > >Mark Boslough > >

Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK e-mail: [email protected] phone: +44 1603 592089 fax: +44 1603 507784 web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm

IMPORTANT NOTICE - This email is intended for the named recipient only. It may contain privileged and confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, notify the sender immediately and destroy this email. You must not copy, distribute or take action in reliance upon it. Whilst all efforts are made to safeguard emails, The School of Environmental Sciences cannot guarantee that attachments are virus free or compatible with your systems and does not accept liability in respect of viruses or computer problems experienced. From: Rick Anthes To: Cc: "Stephen H Schneider"; "Mark B Boslough"; [email protected]; "Thomas Crowley"; [email protected]; "Dr. Krishna AchutaRao"; "Myles Allen"; "Natalia Andronova"; "Tim C Atkinson"; "Caspar Ammann"; "David C. Bader"; "Tim Barnett"; "Eric Barron"; "Graham" "Bench"; "Pat Berge"; "George Boer"; "Celine J. W. Bonfils"; "James A." "Bono"; "James Boyle"; "Ray Bradley"; "Robin Bravender"; "Keith Briffa"; "Wolfgang Brueggemann"; "Lisa Butler"; "Ken Caldeira"; "Peter Caldwell"; "Dan Cayan"; "Peter U. Clark"; "Amy Clement"; "Nancy Cole"; "William Collins"; "Tina Conrad"; "Curtis Covey"; "birte dar"; "Davies Trevor Prof"; "Jay Davis"; "Tomas Diaz De La Rubia"; "Andrew Dessler"; "Michael" "Dettinger"; "Phil Duffy"; "Paul J." "Ehlenbach"; "Kerry Emanuel"; "James Estes"; "Veronika" "Eyring"; "David Fahey"; "Chris Field"; "Peter Foukal"; "Melissa Free"; "Julio Friedmann"; "Bill Fulkerson"; "Inez Fung"; "Jeff Garberson"; "PETER GENT"; "Nathan Gillett"; "peter gleckler"; "Bill Goldstein"; "Hal Graboske"; "Paul Gross"; "Tom Guilderson"; "Leopold Haimberger"; "Alex Hall"; "James Hansen"; "harvey"; "Klaus Hasselmann"; "Susan Joy Hassol"; "Gabi Hegerl"; "Isaac Held"; "Bob Hirschfeld"; "Jeremy Hobbs"; "Dr. Elisabeth A. Holland"; "Greg Holland"; "Brian Hoskins"; "mhughes"; "James Hurrell"; "Ken Jackson"; "c jakob"; "Gardar Johannesson"; "Philip D. Jones"; "Helen Kang"; "Thomas R Karl"; "David Karoly"; "Jeffrey Kiehl"; "Steve Klein"; "Knutti Reto"; "John Lanzante"; [email protected]; "Ron Lehman"; "John lewis"; "Steven A. "Lloyd (GSFC-610.2)[R S INFORMATION SYSTEMS INC]""; "Jane Long"; "Janice Lough"; "mann"; [email protected]; "Linda Mearns"; "carl mears"; "Jerry Meehl"; "Jerry Melillo"; "George Miller"; "Norman Miller"; "Art Mirin"; "John FB" "Mitchell"; "Phil Mote"; "Neville Nicholls"; "Gerald R. North"; "Astrid E.J. Ogilvie"; "Stephanie Ohshita"; "Tim Osborn"; "Stu" "Ostro"; "j palutikof"; "Joyce Penner"; "Thomas C Peterson"; "Tom Phillips"; "David Pierce"; [email protected]; "V. Ramaswamy"; "Veerabhadran" "Ramanathan"; "Sarah Raper"; "Phil Rasch"; "Kathryn Rauhut"; "Doug Rotman"; "Terry L. Root"; "Robert "Sausen DLR""; "jsanter"; "John Schellnhuber"; "David Schimel"; "Michael Schlesinger"; "Gavin Schmidt"; "Christina L. Schomer"; "Lynda Seaver"; "Dian J. Seidel"; "Ted Sheppard"; "s sherwood"; "Adrian Simmons"; "socci anthony"; "brian soden"; "Susan Solomon"; "Ken Sperber"; "Anne Stark"; "Thomas Stocker"; "Ronald J Stouffer"; [email protected]; "Karl Taylor"; "claudia tebaldi"; "Joao P" "Teixeira"; "Simon Tett"; "Thomas A." "Tombrello"; "David Thompson"; "Lonnie Thompson"; "ELLEN THOMPSON"; "Peter" "Thorne"; "Mike Wallace"; "Bud Ward"; "David "Warrilow (GA)""; "Warren Washington"; "Andrew Weaver"; "Michael Wehner"; "Frank Wentz"; "Penny" "Whetton"; "Dean N. Williams"; "Gordon Yano"; "Francis W. Zwiers"; "Erik M" "Conway"; "Sanjay Khanna"; "Graham Cogley"; "Jeffrey Kargel"; "W. Crawford Elliott"; "John Weyant"; "Anthony Janetos"; "Alison" "Sowden"; "Vernon Squire"; "Eric Garen"; "Peter Cross"; "Charles Zeller"; "Ian Murdock"; "Victoria A Arroyo"; "Rashida Leonard"; "Stephanie Fontenoy"; "John Collee"; "Sarah-jane Potts"; "Greg Dutton"; "Richard B. Rood"; "Brien Seeley"; "Mark Seeley"; "Oliver Morton" Cheryl H"; "Richard" "Somerville"; "Martin Heimann"; "Don Kennedy"; "Heidi Cullen"; "Shari Bell"; "Rebecca Bratspies"; "Pete Myers"; "Michael Oppenheimer"; "Tom Wigley"; "Naomi Oreskes"; "mbe boslough"; Anthes Richard Subject: Re: response from Ross McKittrick re: possible Exxon connection Date: Sunday, March 21, 2010 5:33:46 PM

"I just wish we had more Woodward & Bernsteins around these days."

Amen! This is what is needed (among other things).

This is a very interesting dialog. Just to remind everybody, this string will certainly become public and quoted out of context at some point, so please be careful how you phrase things. High road!

Rick

John R. Mashey wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen H Schneider [mailto:[email protected]] > > "Nice list Mark, hi all. Thanks too John Mashey, well reasoned, as is everything you do. You are the expert among us in this chicanery ray tracing of money exercise, and my earlier email was not for you-- but my scientist colleagues who I think are already so knocked off our pins defensively defending well established ideas--as if they needed defending in a rational society--that we are doing much less of our own work. For that bunch of us, forget the money trail research was my advice, leave it to the real pros--you in this case." > > > Thanks, I assumed your audience. I'm hardly a real pro at this, just a persistent guy with some experience at computers. The real pro on this list is Naomi - people with dirty laundry shouldn’t' harass people who are also historians, because they know how to find such material. > I just wish we had more Woodward & Bernsteins around these days. > > Over the last few months, I've had various independent discussions with various scientists, who've volunteered feelings of depression, and sometimes wondering if doing good science was doing any good. > > My standard answer might apply to many here: > > 1) You *must* keep doing good science, because you are the only ones who can, and we need it badly. > > 2) Some of the time, some of you, especially if you have the talent for it, should articulate the science well for the public and policymakers. Some of that can only be credibly done by you, although some of us can help at some levels. A few of you will likely have to spend a lot of time doing this. > > 3) But some of the rest of us *have* to help get these people of your backs. > > If you want to take the offensive, and move from 1) to 2), make sure you talk to the long- experienced folks (like Stephen), and get some PR training, because they play by very different rules that are alien to most scientists. > > And finally, as for journalistic "balance", we know how that happens. > The Economist at least did better, if not perfect. I'll work on them, too. > > For perspective, Surgeon General Luther Terry was a real hero. The tobacco companies actually had a veto over membership in the 1964 tobacco panel, and Terry built a group that was half smokers, although by the end of the study, almost all had quit... But they got the right answer anyway. > > "Balance" is like having a medical researcher talk about lung cancer and secondhand smoke, and having some random tobascco-tied physicist confidently explaining why it's no big deal, and might even have benefits, and can help tax revenues. Maybe if this analogy were pointed out to MSM folks, a few might get embarrassed enough to change. Maybe. > >

-- ******************************************************************

Dr.Richard A. Anthes Phone: 303-497-1652

President University Corporation for Atmospheric Research P.O. Box 3000 Boulder, CO 80307-3000

For delivery via express mail, please use:

1850 Table Mesa Drive Boulder, CO 80305

***************************************************************** From: John R. Mashey To: "Stephen H Schneider"; "Mark B Boslough" Cc: [email protected]; "Thomas Crowley"; [email protected]; "Dr. Krishna AchutaRao"; "Myles Allen"; "Natalia Andronova"; "Tim C Atkinson"; "Rick Anthes"; "Caspar Ammann"; "David C. Bader"; "Tim Barnett"; "Eric Barron"; "Graham" "Bench"; "Pat Berge"; "George Boer"; "Celine J. W. Bonfils"; "James A." "Bono"; "James Boyle"; "Ray Bradley"; "Robin Bravender"; "Keith Briffa"; "Wolfgang Brueggemann"; "Lisa Butler"; "Ken Caldeira"; "Peter Caldwell"; "Dan Cayan"; "Peter U. Clark"; "Amy Clement"; "Nancy Cole"; "William Collins"; "Tina Conrad"; "Curtis Covey"; "birte dar"; "Davies Trevor Prof"; "Jay Davis"; "Tomas Diaz De La Rubia"; "Andrew Dessler"; "Michael" "Dettinger"; "Phil Duffy"; "Paul J." "Ehlenbach"; "Kerry Emanuel"; "James Estes"; "Veronika" "Eyring"; "David Fahey"; "Chris Field"; "Peter Foukal"; "Melissa Free"; "Julio Friedmann"; "Bill Fulkerson"; "Inez Fung"; "Jeff Garberson"; "PETER GENT"; "Nathan Gillett"; "peter gleckler"; "Bill Goldstein"; "Hal Graboske"; "Paul Gross"; "Tom Guilderson"; "Leopold Haimberger"; "Alex Hall"; "James Hansen"; "harvey"; "Klaus Hasselmann"; "Susan Joy Hassol"; "Gabi Hegerl"; "Isaac Held"; "Bob Hirschfeld"; "Jeremy Hobbs"; "Dr. Elisabeth A. Holland"; "Greg Holland"; "Brian Hoskins"; "mhughes"; "James Hurrell"; "Ken Jackson"; "c jakob"; "Gardar Johannesson"; "Philip D. Jones"; "Helen Kang"; "Thomas R Karl"; "David Karoly"; "Jeffrey Kiehl"; "Steve Klein"; "Knutti Reto"; "John Lanzante"; [email protected]; "Ron Lehman"; "John lewis"; "Steven A. "Lloyd (GSFC-610.2)[R S INFORMATION SYSTEMS INC]""; "Jane Long"; "Janice Lough"; "mann"; [email protected]; "Linda Mearns"; "carl mears"; "Jerry Meehl"; "Jerry Melillo"; "George Miller"; "Norman Miller"; "Art Mirin"; "John FB" "Mitchell"; "Phil Mote"; "Neville Nicholls"; "Gerald R. North"; "Astrid E.J. Ogilvie"; "Stephanie Ohshita"; "Tim Osborn"; "Stu" "Ostro"; "j palutikof"; "Joyce Penner"; "Thomas C Peterson"; "Tom Phillips"; "David Pierce"; [email protected]; "V. Ramaswamy"; "Veerabhadran" "Ramanathan"; "Sarah Raper"; "Phil Rasch"; "Kathryn Rauhut"; "Doug Rotman"; "Terry L. Root"; "Robert "Sausen, DLR""; "jsanter"; "John Schellnhuber"; "David Schimel"; "Michael Schlesinger"; "Gavin Schmidt"; "Christina L. Schomer"; "Lynda Seaver"; "Dian J. Seidel"; "Ted Sheppard"; "s sherwood"; "Adrian Simmons"; "socci anthony"; "brian soden"; "Susan Solomon"; "Ken Sperber"; "Anne Stark"; "Thomas Stocker"; "Ronald J Stouffer"; [email protected]; "Karl Taylor"; "claudia tebaldi"; "Joao P" "Teixeira"; "Simon Tett"; "Thomas A." "Tombrello"; "David Thompson"; "Lonnie Thompson"; "ELLEN THOMPSON"; "Peter" "Thorne"; "Mike Wallace"; "Bud Ward"; "David "Warrilow (GA)""; "Warren Washington"; "Andrew Weaver"; "Michael Wehner"; "Frank Wentz"; "Penny" "Whetton"; "Dean N. Williams"; "Gordon Yano"; "Francis W. Zwiers"; "Erik M" "Conway"; "Sanjay Khanna"; "Graham Cogley"; "Jeffrey Kargel"; "W. Crawford Elliott"; "John Weyant"; "Anthony Janetos"; "Alison" "Sowden"; "Vernon Squire"; "Eric Garen"; "Peter Cross"; "Charles Zeller"; "Ian Murdock"; "Victoria A Arroyo"; "Rashida Leonard"; "Stephanie Fontenoy"; "John Collee"; "Sarah-jane Potts"; "Greg Dutton"; "Richard B. Rood"; "Brien Seeley"; "Mark Seeley"; "Oliver Morton"; "Cheryl H"; "Richard" "Somerville"; "Martin Heimann"; "Don Kennedy"; "Heidi Cullen"; "Shari Bell"; "Rebecca Bratspies"; "Pete Myers"; "Michael Oppenheimer"; "Tom Wigley"; "Naomi Oreskes"; "mbe boslough" Subject: RE: response from Ross McKittrick re: possible Exxon connection Date: Saturday, March 20, 2010 5:17:46 PM

-----Original Message----- From: Stephen H Schneider [mailto:[email protected]]

"Nice list Mark, hi all. Thanks too John Mashey, well reasoned, as is everything you do. You are the expert among us in this chicanery ray tracing of money exercise, and my earlier email was not for you-- but my scientist colleagues who I think are already so knocked off our pins defensively defending well established ideas--as if they needed defending in a rational society--that we are doing much less of our own work. For that bunch of us, forget the money trail research was my advice, leave it to the real pros--you in this case."

Thanks, I assumed your audience. I'm hardly a real pro at this, just a persistent guy with some experience at computers. The real pro on this list is Naomi - people with dirty laundry shouldn’t' harass people who are also historians, because they know how to find such material. I just wish we had more Woodward & Bernsteins around these days.

Over the last few months, I've had various independent discussions with various scientists, who've volunteered feelings of depression, and sometimes wondering if doing good science was doing any good.

My standard answer might apply to many here:

1) You *must* keep doing good science, because you are the only ones who can, and we need it badly.

2) Some of the time, some of you, especially if you have the talent for it, should articulate the science well for the public and policymakers. Some of that can only be credibly done by you, although some of us can help at some levels. A few of you will likely have to spend a lot of time doing this.

3) But some of the rest of us *have* to help get these people of your backs.

If you want to take the offensive, and move from 1) to 2), make sure you talk to the long-experienced folks (like Stephen), and get some PR training, because they play by very different rules that are alien to most scientists.

And finally, as for journalistic "balance", we know how that happens. The Economist at least did better, if not perfect. I'll work on them, too.

For perspective, Surgeon General Luther Terry was a real hero. The tobacco companies actually had a veto over membership in the 1964 tobacco panel, and Terry built a group that was half smokers, although by the end of the study, almost all had quit... But they got the right answer anyway.

"Balance" is like having a medical researcher talk about lung cancer and secondhand smoke, and having some random tobascco-tied physicist confidently explaining why it's no big deal, and might even have benefits, and can help tax revenues. Maybe if this analogy were pointed out to MSM folks, a few might get embarrassed enough to change. Maybe. From: Stephen H Schneider To: Mark B Boslough Cc: [email protected]; Thomas Crowley; [email protected]; Dr. Krishna AchutaRao; Myles Allen; Natalia Andronova; Tim C Atkinson; Rick Anthes; Caspar Ammann; David C. Bader; Tim Barnett; Eric Barron; Graham" "Bench; Pat Berge; George Boer; Celine J. W. Bonfils; James A." "Bono; James Boyle; Ray Bradley; Robin Bravender; Keith Briffa; Wolfgang Brueggemann; Lisa Butler; Ken Caldeira; Peter Caldwell; Dan Cayan; Peter U. Clark; Amy Clement; Nancy Cole; William Collins; Tina Conrad; Curtis Covey; birte dar; Davies Trevor Prof; Jay Davis; Tomas Diaz De La Rubia; Andrew Dessler; Michael" "Dettinger; Phil Duffy; Paul J." "Ehlenbach; Kerry Emanuel; James Estes; Veronika" "Eyring; David Fahey; Chris Field; Peter Foukal; Melissa Free; Julio Friedmann; Bill Fulkerson; Inez Fung; Jeff Garberson; PETER GENT; Nathan Gillett; peter gleckler; Bill Goldstein; Hal Graboske; Paul Gross; Tom Guilderson; Leopold Haimberger; Alex Hall; James Hansen; harvey; Klaus Hasselmann; Susan Joy Hassol; Gabi Hegerl; Isaac Held; Bob Hirschfeld; Jeremy Hobbs; Dr. Elisabeth A. Holland; Greg Holland; Brian Hoskins; mhughes; James Hurrell; Ken Jackson; c jakob; Gardar Johannesson; Philip D. Jones; Helen Kang; Thomas R Karl; David Karoly; Jeffrey Kiehl; Steve Klein; Knutti Reto; John Lanzante; [email protected]; Ron Lehman; John lewis; Steven A. "Lloyd (GSFC-610.2)[R S INFORMATION SYSTEMS INC]"; Jane Long; Janice Lough; mann; [email protected]; Linda Mearns; carl mears; Jerry Meehl; Jerry Melillo; George Miller; Norman Miller; Art Mirin; John FB" "Mitchell; Phil Mote; Neville Nicholls; Gerald R. North; Astrid E.J. Ogilvie; Stephanie Ohshita; Tim Osborn; Stu" "Ostro; j palutikof; Joyce Penner; Thomas C Peterson; Tom Phillips; David Pierce; [email protected]; V. Ramaswamy; Veerabhadran" "Ramanathan; Sarah Raper; Phil Rasch; Kathryn Rauhut; Doug Rotman; Terry L. Root; Robert "Sausen, DLR"; jsanter; John Schellnhuber; David Schimel; Michael Schlesinger; Gavin Schmidt; Christina L. Schomer; Lynda Seaver; Dian J. Seidel; Ted Sheppard; s sherwood; Adrian Simmons; socci anthony; brian soden; Susan Solomon; Ken Sperber; Anne Stark; Thomas Stocker; Ronald J Stouffer; [email protected]; Karl Taylor; claudia tebaldi; Joao P" "Teixeira; Simon Tett; Thomas A." "Tombrello; David Thompson; Lonnie Thompson; ELLEN THOMPSON; Peter" "Thorne; Mike Wallace; Bud Ward; David "Warrilow (GA)"; Warren Washington; Andrew Weaver; Michael Wehner; Frank Wentz; Penny" "Whetton; Dean N. Williams; Gordon Yano; Francis W. Zwiers; Erik M" "Conway; Sanjay Khanna; Graham Cogley; Jeffrey Kargel; W. Crawford Elliott; John Weyant; Anthony Janetos; Alison" "Sowden; Vernon Squire; Eric Garen; Peter Cross; Charles Zeller; Ian Murdock; Victoria A Arroyo; Rashida Leonard; Stephanie Fontenoy; John Collee; Sarah-jane Potts; Greg Dutton Richard B. Rood; Brien Seeley; Mark Seeley; Oliver Morton; Cheryl H; Richard" "Somerville; Martin Heimann; Don Kennedy; Heidi Cullen; Shari Bell; Rebecca Bratspies; Pete Myers; Michael Oppenheimer; Tom Wigley; Naomi Oreskes; mbe boslough Subject: Re: response from Ross McKittrick re: possible Exxon connection Date: Saturday, March 20, 2010 2:52:11 PM

Nice list Mark, hi all. Thanks too John Mashey, well reasoned, as is everything you do. You are the expert among us in this chicanery ray tracing of money exercise, and my earlier email was not for you-- but my scientist colleagues who I think are already so knocked off our pins defensively defending well established ideas--as if they needed defending in a rational society--that we are doing much less of our own work. For that bunch of us, forget the money trail research was my advice, leave it to the real pros--you in this case. As to your Jon Krosnick point John about rebuttals matter (I agree), one case in point is the polls in the UK after Channel 4 aired the fraudulent movie The Great Global Warming Swindle without rebuttal a few years ago, responses were very influenced by it. On the other hand in Australia when a bunch of us worked to do an ABC after airing rebuttal program, nothing changed in public opinion. Same with Thomas Gale More, whose arguments are totally idiotic and ideological--like him in my view. I debated him once years ago and he slowly twisted on the vine until people were actually laughing at him after he tried rebuttal spouting such garbage it was actually funny. The problem is when it is just parallel sound bites that "neutrality" is achieved--precisely the deniers objective: get equal status at the bargaining table for positions with no more than a few percent probability of being right, if that high. Destroying these guys face to face is usually a piece of cake--they are wrong and usually know less by far than we do, so with a few exceptions, are very easy to debate. The problem is we are not there most of the time for such things and in truth, here comes a big dilemma, I don't like to debate them-- why inflate an intellectual nobody like Lord Monckton to some kind of legitimate prominence given their publication records in serious science--slim to none. We have entry barriers in science to be qualified to even enter a debate over the details--no medical team would let anybody else in so why should we when there really is a thing called climate science expertise. That is a problem in civil society where the notion of citizen scientist is appealing to some, and abused by others. That problem of framing of who is a legitimate debater is not going away anytime soon, and is deliberately exploited by the deniers to get equal status at the bargaining table for outrageous and ridiculous arguments--same as creationists or tobacco defenders. And in the US at least the media buy this way too often--especially now after most have fired their science specialists capable of discerning the quality of an argument. I don't know how we get around this Mark. So do follow the money John, but for the rest of us we need to follow the science and not bury our leads every time we talk to the media with two paragraphs of caveats before we even mention irreversible climatic impacts possibilities. Keep the caveats, that is ethically required by honest scientists, just not first maybe? Cheers and fight on, Steve

----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark B Boslough" To: "Stephen H Schneider" , "mbe boslough" Cc: [email protected], "Thomas Crowley" , [email protected], "Dr. Krishna AchutaRao" , "Myles Allen" , "Natalia Andronova" , "Tim C Atkinson" , "Rick Anthes" , "Caspar Ammann" , "David C. Bader" , "Tim Barnett" , "Eric Barron" , "Graham' 'Bench" , "Pat Berge" , "George Boer" , "Celine J. W. Bonfils" , "James A.' 'Bono" , "James Boyle" , "Ray Bradley" , "Robin Bravender" , "Keith Briffa" , "Wolfgang Brueggemann" , "Lisa Butler" , "Ken Caldeira" , "Peter Caldwell" , "Dan Cayan" , "Peter U. Clark" , "Amy Clement" , "Nancy Cole" , "William Collins" , "Tina Conrad" , "Curtis Covey" , "birte dar" "Davies Trevor Prof" , "Jay Davis" , "Tomas Diaz De La Rubia" , "Andrew Dessler" , "Michael' 'Dettinger" , "Phil Duffy" , "Paul J.' 'Ehlenbach" , "Kerry Emanuel" , "James Estes" , "Veronika' 'Eyring" , "David Fahey" , "Chris Field" , "Peter Foukal" < , "Melissa Free" , "Julio Friedmann" , "Bill Fulkerson" , "Inez Fung" , "Jeff Garberson" "PETER GENT" , "Nathan Gillett" , "peter gleckler" , "Bill Goldstein" , "Hal Graboske" , "Paul Gross" , "Tom Guilderson" , "Leopold Haimberger" , "Alex Hall" , "James Hansen" , "harvey" , "Klaus Hasselmann" , "Susan Joy Hassol" < "Gabi Hegerl" , "Isaac Held" , "Bob Hirschfeld" , "Jeremy Hobbs" "Dr. Elisabeth A. Holland" , "Greg Holland" , "Brian Hoskins" , "mhughes" , "James Hurrell" , "Ken Jackson" , "c jakob" , "Gardar Johannesson" , "Philip D. Jones" , "Helen Kang" , "Thomas R Karl" , "David Karoly" , "Jeffrey Kiehl" , "Steve Klein" , "Knutti Reto" , "John Lanzante" , [email protected], "Ron Lehman" , "John lewis" , "Steven A. 'Lloyd (GSFC- 610.2)[R S INFORMATION SYSTEMS INC]'" , "Jane Long" >, "Janice Lough" , "mann" , [email protected], "Linda Mearns" , "carl mears" , "Jerry Meehl" , "Jerry Melillo" , "George Miller" , "Norman Miller" , "Art Mirin" , "John FB' 'Mitchell" , "Phil Mote" , "Neville Nicholls" , "Gerald R. North" , "Astrid E.J. Ogilvie" , "Stephanie Ohshita" , "Tim Osborn" , "Stu' 'Ostro" >, "j palutikof" , "Joyce Penner" , "Thomas C Peterson" , "Tom Phillips" , "David Pierce" , [email protected], "V. Ramaswamy" , "Veerabhadran' 'Ramanathan" , "Sarah Raper" , "Phil Rasch" , "Kathryn Rauhut" , "Doug Rotman" , "Terry L. Root" , "Robert 'Sausen, DLR'" , "jsanter" , "John Schellnhuber" , "David Schimel" , "Michael Schlesinger" , "Gavin Schmidt" , "Christina L. Schomer" , "Lynda Seaver" , "Dian J. Seidel" , "Ted Sheppard" , "s sherwood" , "Adrian Simmons" , "socci anthony" , "brian soden" , "Susan Solomon" , "Ken Sperber" , "Anne Stark" , "Thomas Stocker" , "Ronald J Stouffer" , [email protected], "Karl Taylor" , "claudia tebaldi" , "Joao P' 'Teixeira" , "Simon Tett" , "Thomas A.' 'Tombrello" , "David Thompson" , "Lonnie Thompson" , "ELLEN THOMPSON" , "Peter' 'Thorne" , "Mike Wallace" , "Bud Ward" , "David 'Warrilow (GA)'" , "Warren Washington" , "Andrew Weaver" , "Michael Wehner" , "Frank Wentz" , "Penny' 'Whetton" , "Dean N. Williams" , "Gordon Yano" , "Francis W. Zwiers" , "Erik M' 'Conway" , "Sanjay Khanna" < , "Graham Cogley" , "Jeffrey Kargel" , "W. Crawford Elliott" , "John Weyant" , "Anthony Janetos" , "Alison' 'Sowden" >, "Vernon Squire" , "Eric Garen" < "Peter Cross" , "Charles Zeller" , "Ian Murdock" , "Victoria A Arroyo" , "Rashida Leonard" , "Stephanie Fontenoy" < , "John Collee" >, "Sarah- jane Potts" >, "Greg Dutton" >, "Richard B. Rood" , "Brien Seeley" < , "Mark Seeley" , "Oliver Morton" >, "Cheryl_H" , "Richard' 'Somerville" , "Martin Heimann" , "Don Kennedy" , "Heidi Cullen" < >, "Shari Bell" , "Rebecca Bratspies" , "Pete Myers" "Michael Oppenheimer" , "Tom Wigley" , "Naomi Oreskes" Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 12:14:11 PM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific Subject: RE: response from Ross McKittrick re: possible Exxon connection

Folks,

I would like to suggest some approaches to changing the public/media debate: 1) Take control of the framing.

The burden of proof isn't on scientists to show that the Earth abides by the laws of physics. It is an extraordinary claim to assert that the thermal IR opacity of the air can increase without trapping heat and warming. The denialists offer no evidence for their extraordinary claim. We don't need to defend the science from them. We need to question their claim and require *them* to provide evidence, or even to explain it in terms of the most basic theory that doesn't violate the laws of physics. In fact we have a professional obligation to challenge them. The burden of proof in engineering or medicine is on the party claiming that a change can be made to a system without any risk to health or safety. That's the Hippocratic Oath: "first do no harm". The burden of proof in science is on the party making the extraordinary claim. The words "conservative" and "skeptic" have been turned on their heads by the denialists. How did we allow that to happen? We should refuse to accept the denialist/media framing and continue to use words in their traditional sense.

2) Demand fairness.

There is irony in the fact that the liberal, postmodernist "fairness" doctrine that seems to dominate the mainstream media has been exploited by denialists so that "both sides" of the debate are given equal weight. Creationists pioneered the exploitation of American fair-mindedness in their "teach the controversy" strategy. We are told that scientists are not sufficiently humble. We need to take the criticism seriously, even though practitioners of other professions (such as medicine and engineering) always exclude amateurs and dilettantes who try to be treated as equals. Pointing out that our opponents don't even have high-school level understanding of physics will not help us in the public arena, where the vast majority of citizens do not have a high-school level of understanding of physics. But everybody has a strong concept of what it means to be fair, and--if it is pointed out--I think most people will recognize that scientists have been treated unfairly by the media, who have applied a double standard. As Steve said, if we could see private correspondence among denialists, it would surely be much worse than anything that was stolen from the CRU. The fact is that the denialists *publicly* say worse things all the time and are rarely criticized for it, because of the media's double standard. We need to get the public on our side by demanding fairness by the media in what they chose to report and how they report it.

3) Go on the offensive

We are used to playing by the rules of science. Arguing with one another is symmetric but arguing with denialists is not. Their chess pieces don't move by the same rules as ours do. Why are scientists always surprised by their attacks? We need to demand that the media apply their investigative skills in a fair way. They can't just single out perceived misbehavior by scientists; they need to report (actual) misbehavior by denialists and their allies. I constantly read that the "hockey stick" has been discredited, but one of the primary sources of the supposed discredit is the Wegman Report, which includes three pages of plagiarized material. Which is worse, making (and correcting) a statistical error, or plagiarizing pages of material? This was discovered 3 months ago and nobody seems to care outside of a very narrow part of the blogosphere. I think we, as scientists, need to spend less time being defensive about ourselves and our work. We need to spend more time pointing out mistakes, misrepresentations, misconduct, and outright fraud by denialists. Acting as if this is below our station and don't need to do that, because they don't publish in legitimate journals, is a mistake. Maybe we will be perceived as being sufficiently humble if we are willing to get in the mud with the pigs.

Since this is a side activity for me, I'm going to switch over to my university ([email protected]) email address for further correspondence with this group.

Regards,

Mark Boslough

> -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen H Schneider [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 8:00 PM > To: > > Hate to join Tom in being the heavy here, everybody, but does it really > matter so much? Sure, politically "follow the money" is the battle cry > of investigative media and opponents of whoever someone wants to smear > (rightly or wrongly), but McKitrick smears himself enough with bad > climate science in my view we don't need much more to assign low > confidence to his scientific credibility. If these oh so freedom loving > supporters of hacked privacy think climate scientists express impolite > and inappropriate frustrations to each other, but the oh-so-pure denier > set doesn't, being saints of good scientific ethics of course, why > don't they just volunteer to post all their private communications with > each other over the past 10 years and we can compare their sainthood to > our sinning. Wanna' bet who looks the dirtiest by FAR!!! > > We are all busy, and I am glad some of you carved time out of that > packed life to check the sources of support of the forces of darkness, > but my cynical side thinks it won't much affect the debate really, > since our being honest and increasingly confident based on evidence-- > now there's a new idea?!@#$%--hasn't tipped the debate yet to > meaningful policy, so how is knowing how many laundered bucks he got > going to create a social tipping point? Sure, if you learn something on > this go for it, but don't expect much return on investment...A mega > heat wave this summer is worth 3 orders of magnitude more in the PR > wars--too bad we have to wait for random events since evidence doesn't > seem to cut it anymore with the MSM (oh, sorry, jargon, main stream > media). > Fight on folks, and maybe remember Bob Dylan's song from what, 40 > years ago in my youth--still worth repeating: > Come Senators, Congressmen, please heed the call > Don't block up the doorway, don't stand in the hall > 'Cause he that gets hurt will be he who has stalled > 'Cause the battle outside, raging > Will soon shake your windows and rattle your walls > 'Cause the times they are a-changin' > --that is what we need to be focusing on: getting the times a- > changin'--in time to avoid irreversibility in various systems. Not > going to be quick or easy... > Cheers, Steve > > Stephen H. Schneider > Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for Interdisciplinary Environmental > Studies, > Professor, Department of Biology and > Senior Fellow, Woods Institute for the Environment > Mailing address: > Yang & Yamazaki Environment & Energy Building - MC 4205 > 473 Via Ortega > Ph: 650 725 9978 > F: 650 725 4387 > Websites: climatechange.net > patientfromhell.org > From: Boslough To: Boslough, Mark B Cc: Stephen H Schneider; [email protected]; Thomas Crowley; [email protected]; Dr. Krishna AchutaRao; Myles Allen; Natalia Andronova; Tim C Atkinson; Rick Anthes; Caspar Ammann; David C. Bader; Tim Barnett; Eric Barron; Graham" "Bench; Pat Berge; George Boer; Celine J. W. Bonfils; James A." "Bono; James Boyle; Ray Bradley; Robin Bravender; Keith Briffa; Wolfgang Brueggemann; Lisa Butler; Ken Caldeira; Peter Caldwell; Dan Cayan; Peter U. Clark; Amy Clement; Nancy Cole; William Collins; Tina Conrad; Curtis Covey; birte dar; Davies Trevor Prof; Jay Davis; Tomas Diaz De La Rubia; Andrew Dessler; Michael" "Dettinger; Phil Duffy; Paul J." "Ehlenbach; Kerry Emanuel; James Estes; Veronika" "Eyring; David Fahey; Chris Field; Peter Foukal; Melissa Free; Julio Friedmann; Bill Fulkerson; Inez Fung; Jeff Garberson; PETER GENT; Nathan Gillett; peter gleckler; Bill Goldstein; Hal Graboske; Paul Gross; Tom Guilderson; Leopold Haimberger; Alex Hall; James Hansen; harvey; Klaus Hasselmann; Susan Joy Hassol; Gabi Hegerl; Isaac Held; Bob Hirschfeld; Jeremy Hobbs; Dr. Elisabeth A. Holland; Greg Holland; Brian Hoskins; mhughes; James Hurrell; Ken Jackson; c jakob; Gardar Johannesson; Philip D. Jones; Helen Kang; Thomas R Karl; David Karoly; Jeffrey Kiehl; Steve Klein; Knutti Reto; John Lanzante; [email protected]; Ron Lehman; John lewis; Steven A. "Lloyd (GSFC-610.2)[R S INFORMATION SYSTEMS INC]"; Jane Long; Janice Lough; mann; [email protected]; Linda Mearns; carl mears; Jerry Meehl; Jerry Melillo; George Miller; Norman Miller; Art Mirin; John FB" "Mitchell; Phil Mote; Neville Nicholls; Gerald R. North; Astrid E.J. Ogilvie; Stephanie Ohshita; Tim Osborn; Stu" "Ostro; j palutikof; Joyce Penner; Thomas C Peterson; Tom Phillips; David Pierce; [email protected]; V. Ramaswamy; Veerabhadran" "Ramanathan; Sarah Raper; Phil Rasch; Kathryn Rauhut; Doug Rotman; Terry L. Root; Robert "Sausen, DLR"; jsanter; John Schellnhuber; David Schimel; Michael Schlesinger; Gavin Schmidt; Christina L. Schomer; Lynda Seaver; Dian J. Seidel; Ted Sheppard; s sherwood; Adrian Simmons; socci anthony; brian soden; Susan Solomon; Ken Sperber; Anne Stark; Thomas Stocker; Ronald J Stouffer; [email protected]; Karl Taylor; claudia tebaldi; Joao P" "Teixeira; Simon Tett; Thomas A." "Tombrello; David Thompson; Lonnie Thompson; ELLEN THOMPSON; Peter" "Thorne; Mike Wallace; Bud Ward; David "Warrilow (GA)"; Warren Washington; Andrew Weaver; Michael Wehner; Frank Wentz; Penny" "Whetton; Dean N. Williams; Gordon Yano; Francis W. Zwiers; Erik M" "Conway; Sanjay Khanna; Graham Cogley; Jeffrey Kargel; W. Crawford Elliott; John Weyant; Anthony Janetos; Alison" "Sowden; Vernon Squire; Eric Garen; Peter Cross; Charles Zeller; Ian Murdock; Victoria A Arroyo; Rashida Leonard; Stephanie Fontenoy; John Collee; Sarah-jane Potts; Greg Dutton; Richard B. Rood; Brien Seeley; Mark Seeley; Oliver Morton; Cheryl H; Richard" "Somerville; Martin Heimann; Don Kennedy; Heidi Cullen; Shari Bell; Rebecca Bratspies; Pete Myers; Michael Oppenheimer; Tom Wigley; Naomi Oreskes Subject: Top Ten List of denialist misconduct Date: Saturday, March 20, 2010 2:42:07 PM

3. Willful removal of uncertainty bands on the MBH hockey stick graph by Singer et al. in the Non-IPCC report, thereby misrepresenting its purported accuracy. Removing information from a graph when replotting it is unethical, especially when the information removed contradicts the point being made by the party who is criticizing the work.

If anyone has any comments, suggestions, or additions to my list, please let me know. I'm presenting this on April 14.

Thanks!

Mark Boslough From: Boslough, Mark B To: Stephen H Schneider; mbe boslough Cc: [email protected]; Thomas Crowley; [email protected]; Dr. Krishna AchutaRao; Myles Allen; Natalia Andronova; Tim C Atkinson; Rick Anthes; Caspar Ammann; David C. Bader; Tim Barnett; Eric Barron; Graham" "Bench; Pat Berge; George Boer; Celine J. W. Bonfils; James A." "Bono; James Boyle; Ray Bradley; Robin Bravender; Keith Briffa; Wolfgang Brueggemann; Lisa Butler; Ken Caldeira; Peter Caldwell; Dan Cayan; Peter U. Clark; Amy Clement; Nancy Cole; William Collins; Tina Conrad; Curtis Covey; birte dar; Davies Trevor Prof; Jay Davis; Tomas Diaz De La Rubia; Andrew Dessler; Michael" "Dettinger; Phil Duffy; Paul J." "Ehlenbach; Kerry Emanuel; James Estes; Veronika" "Eyring; David Fahey; Chris Field; Peter Foukal; Melissa Free; Julio Friedmann; Bill Fulkerson; Inez Fung; Jeff Garberson; PETER GENT; Nathan Gillett; peter gleckler; Bill Goldstein; Hal Graboske; Paul Gross; Tom Guilderson; Leopold Haimberger; Alex Hall; James Hansen; harvey; Klaus Hasselmann; Susan Joy Hassol; Gabi Hegerl; Isaac Held; Bob Hirschfeld; Jeremy Hobbs; Dr. Elisabeth A. Holland; Greg Holland; Brian Hoskins; mhughes; James Hurrell; Ken Jackson; c jakob; Gardar Johannesson; Philip D. Jones; Helen Kang; Thomas R Karl; David Karoly; Jeffrey Kiehl; Steve Klein; Knutti Reto; John Lanzante; [email protected]; Ron Lehman; John lewis; Steven A. "Lloyd (GSFC-610.2)[R S INFORMATION SYSTEMS INC]"; Jane Long; Janice Lough; mann; [email protected]; Linda Mearns; carl mears; Jerry Meehl; Jerry Melillo; George Miller; Norman Miller; Art Mirin; John FB" "Mitchell; Phil Mote; Neville Nicholls; Gerald R. North; Astrid E.J. Ogilvie; Stephanie Ohshita; Tim Osborn; Stu" "Ostro; j palutikof; Joyce Penner; Thomas C Peterson; Tom Phillips; David Pierce; [email protected]; V. Ramaswamy; Veerabhadran" "Ramanathan; Sarah Raper; Phil Rasch; Kathryn Rauhut; Doug Rotman; Terry L. Root; Robert "Sausen, DLR"; jsanter; John Schellnhuber; David Schimel; Michael Schlesinger; Gavin Schmidt; Christina L. Schomer; Lynda Seaver; Dian J. Seidel; Ted Sheppard; s sherwood; Adrian Simmons; socci anthony; brian soden; Susan Solomon; Ken Sperber; Anne Stark; Thomas Stocker; Ronald J Stouffer; [email protected]; Karl Taylor; claudia tebaldi; Joao P" "Teixeira; Simon Tett; Thomas A." "Tombrello; David Thompson; Lonnie Thompson; ELLEN THOMPSON; Peter" "Thorne; Mike Wallace; Bud Ward; David "Warrilow (GA)"; Warren Washington; Andrew Weaver; Michael Wehner; Frank Wentz; Penny" "Whetton; Dean N. Williams; Gordon Yano; Francis W. Zwiers; Erik M" "Conway; Sanjay Khanna; Graham Cogley; Jeffrey Kargel; W. Crawford Elliott; John Weyant; Anthony Janetos; Alison" "Sowden; Vernon Squire; Eric Garen; Peter Cross; Charles Zeller; Ian Murdock; Victoria A Arroyo; Rashida Leonard; Stephanie Fontenoy; John Collee; Sarah-jane Potts; Greg Dutton; Richard B. Rood; Brien Seeley; Mark Seeley; Oliver Morton; Cheryl H; Richard" "Somerville; Martin Heimann; Don Kennedy; Heidi Cullen; Shari Bell; Rebecca Bratspies; Pete Myers; Michael Oppenheimer; Tom Wigley; Naomi Oreskes Subject: RE: response from Ross McKittrick re: possible Exxon connection Date: Saturday, March 20, 2010 2:14:52 PM

Folks,

I would like to suggest some approaches to changing the public/media debate:

1) Take control of the framing.

2) Demand fairness.

3) Go on the offensive

Since this is a side activity for me, I'm going to switch over to my university ([email protected]) email address for further correspondence with this group.

Regards,

Mark Boslough

> -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen H Schneider [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 8:00 PM > To: > > Hate to join Tom in being the heavy here, everybody, but does it really > matter so much? Sure, politically "follow the money" is the battle cry > of investigative media and opponents of whoever someone wants to smear > (rightly or wrongly), but McKitrick smears himself enough with bad > climate science in my view we don't need much more to assign low > confidence to his scientific credibility. If these oh so freedom loving > supporters of hacked privacy think climate scientists express impolite > and inappropriate frustrations to each other, but the oh-so-pure denier > set doesn't, being saints of good scientific ethics of course, why > don't they just volunteer to post all their private communications with > each other over the past 10 years and we can compare their sainthood to > our sinning. Wanna' bet who looks the dirtiest by FAR!!! > > We are all busy, and I am glad some of you carved time out of that > packed life to check the sources of support of the forces of darkness, > but my cynical side thinks it won't much affect the debate really, > since our being honest and increasingly confident based on evidence-- > now there's a new idea?!@#$%--hasn't tipped the debate yet to > meaningful policy, so how is knowing how many laundered bucks he got > going to create a social tipping point? Sure, if you learn something on > this go for it, but don't expect much return on investment...A mega > heat wave this summer is worth 3 orders of magnitude more in the PR > wars--too bad we have to wait for random events since evidence doesn't > seem to cut it anymore with the MSM (oh, sorry, jargon, main stream > media). > Fight on folks, and maybe remember Bob Dylan's song from what, 40 > years ago in my youth--still worth repeating: > Come Senators, Congressmen, please heed the call > Don't block up the doorway, don't stand in the hall > 'Cause he that gets hurt will be he who has stalled > 'Cause the battle outside, raging > Will soon shake your windows and rattle your walls > 'Cause the times they are a-changin' > --that is what we need to be focusing on: getting the times a- > changin'--in time to avoid irreversibility in various systems. Not > going to be quick or easy... > Cheers, Steve > > Stephen H. Schneider > Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for Interdisciplinary Environmental > Studies, > Professor, Department of Biology and > Senior Fellow, Woods Institute for the Environment > Mailing address: > Yang & Yamazaki Environment & Energy Building - MC 4205 > 473 Via Ortega > Ph: 650 725 9978 > F: 650 725 4387 > Websites: climatechange.net > patientfromhell.org > From: Tom Wigley To: Cc: "Stephen H Schneider"; [email protected]; "Thomas Crowley"; [email protected]; "Dr. Krishna AchutaRao"; "Myles Allen"; "Natalia Andronova"; "Tim C Atkinson"; "Rick Anthes"; "Caspar Ammann"; "David C. Bader"; "Tim Barnett"; "Eric Barron"; "Graham" "Bench"; "Pat Berge"; "George Boer"; "Celine J. W. Bonfils"; "James A." "Bono"; "Mark B" "Boslough"; "James Boyle"; "Ray Bradley"; "Robin Bravender"; "Keith Briffa"; "Wolfgang Brueggemann"; "Lisa Butler"; "Ken Caldeira"; "Peter Caldwell"; "Dan Cayan"; "Peter U. Clark"; "Amy Clement"; "Nancy Cole"; "William Collins"; "Tina Conrad"; "Curtis Covey"; "birte dar"; "Davies Trevor Prof"; "Jay Davis"; "Tomas Diaz De La Rubia"; "Andrew Dessler"; "Michael" "Dettinger"; "Phil Duffy"; "Paul J." "Ehlenbach"; "Kerry Emanuel"; "James Estes"; "Veronika" "Eyring"; "David Fahey"; "Chris Field"; "Peter Foukal"; "Melissa Free"; "Julio Friedmann"; "Bill Fulkerson"; "Inez Fung"; "Jeff Garberson"; "PETER GENT"; "Nathan Gillett"; "peter gleckler"; "Bill Goldstein"; "Hal Graboske"; "Paul Gross"; "Tom Guilderson"; "Leopold Haimberger"; "Alex Hall"; "James Hansen"; "harvey"; "Klaus Hasselmann"; "Susan Joy Hassol"; "Gabi Hegerl"; "Isaac Held"; "Bob Hirschfeld"; "Jeremy Hobbs"; "Dr. Elisabeth A. Holland"; "Greg Holland"; "Brian Hoskins"; "mhughes"; "James Hurrell"; "Ken Jackson"; "c jakob"; "Gardar Johannesson"; "Philip D. Jones"; "Helen Kang"; "Thomas R Karl"; "David Karoly"; "Jeffrey Kiehl"; "Steve Klein"; "Knutti Reto"; "John Lanzante"; [email protected]; "Ron Lehman"; "John lewis"; "Steven A. "Lloyd (GSFC-610.2)[R S INFORMATION SYSTEMS INC]""; "Jane Long"; "Janice Lough"; "mann"; [email protected]; "Linda Mearns"; "carl mears"; "Jerry Meehl"; "Jerry Melillo"; "George Miller"; "Norman Miller"; "Art Mirin"; "John FB" "Mitchell"; "Phil Mote"; "Neville Nicholls"; "Gerald R. North"; "Astrid E.J. Ogilvie"; "Stephanie Ohshita"; "Tim Osborn"; "Stu" "Ostro"; "j palutikof"; "Joyce Penner"; "Thomas C Peterson"; "Tom Phillips"; "David Pierce"; [email protected]; "V. Ramaswamy"; "Veerabhadran" "Ramanathan"; "Sarah Raper"; "Phil Rasch"; "Kathryn Rauhut"; "Doug Rotman"; "Terry L. Root"; "Robert "Sausen, DLR""; "jsanter"; "John Schellnhuber"; "David Schimel"; "Michael Schlesinger"; "Gavin Schmidt"; "Christina L. Schomer"; "Lynda Seaver"; "Dian J. Seidel"; "Ted Sheppard"; "s sherwood"; "Adrian Simmons"; "socci anthony"; "brian soden"; "Susan Solomon"; "Ken Sperber"; "Anne Stark"; "Thomas Stocker"; "Ronald J Stouffer"; [email protected]; "Karl Taylor"; "claudia tebaldi"; "Joao P" "Teixeira"; "Simon Tett"; "Thomas A." "Tombrello"; "David Thompson"; "Lonnie Thompson"; "ELLEN THOMPSON"; "Peter" "Thorne"; "Mike Wallace"; "Bud Ward"; "David "Warrilow (GA)""; "Warren Washington"; "Andrew Weaver"; "Michael Wehner"; "Frank Wentz"; "Penny" "Whetton"; "Dean N. Williams"; "Gordon Yano"; "Francis W. Zwiers"; "Erik M" "Conway"; "Sanjay Khanna"; "Graham Cogley"; "Jeffrey Kargel"; "W. Crawford Elliott"; "John Weyant"; "Anthony Janetos"; "Alison" "Sowden"; "Vernon Squire"; "Eric Garen"; "Peter Cross"; "Charles Zeller"; "Ian Murdock"; "Victoria A Arroyo"; "Rashida Leonard"; "Stephanie Fontenoy"; "John Collee"; "Sarah-jane Potts"; "Greg Dutton"; "Richard B. Rood"; "Brien Seeley"; "Mark Seeley"; "Oliver Morton"; "Cheryl H"; "Richard" "Somerville"; "Martin Heimann"; "Don Kennedy"; "Heidi Cullen"; "Shari Bell"; "Rebecca Bratspies"; "Pete Myers"; "Michael Oppenheimer"; "Naomi Oreskes" Subject: Re: response from Ross McKittrick re: possible Exxon connection Date: Saturday, March 20, 2010 1:28:21 PM

John,

Thanks for this, and your other work on these issues. I agree fully with your balanced perspective. Chasing after individuals is not a high priority, but I applaud what you have done here. There are bigger fish in the sea.

Indeed, there are even bigger fish, and the US is rapidly losing ground. I speak here of the efforts by China, India, Russia, Sth Korea, to develop nuclear power. (China, e.g., has some 24 nuclear plants under construction.) Until Gore, Clinton and Kerry shut down our Gen. 4 reactor program, we were way ahead of these countries -- now we are behind in many (but not all) aspects. If these countries go nuclear over coming decades, and if, as a consequence, the cost of nuclear energy is reduced from its already low level, then our tardiness in the US (for whatever reason) will make our decisions here irrelevant.

Here is an interesting story. The UAE is having a nuclear plant built by South Korea (can't remember the cost precisely, about $3700 per GWe from memory -- making nuclear energy, over plant lifetime, competitive with coal). The time to build is 3 to 5 years. What is interesting is that, of all places, the UAE has an abundant solar resource -- yet they have decided to go nuclear.

Please don't take the numbers above as gospel -- my point is that the US may soon be left behind, and the influences of lobbies, skeptics and money may well become increasingly less important. And don't take my comments here on nuclear energy as more than just a small bite out of the very large and complex cake of the nuclear energy issue.

Regarding my apparent defense of people like McKitrick, this was done partly in ignorance of what you have done. Of course, we must abide by the principle of innocent until proven guilty. You have, however, provided some telling evidence about funding sources (and other incentives) for people on the skeptics side. Thanks.

As a final word (oft stated) -- the bogus science that skeptics propagate is still a key issue -- and one where we, as scientists, can contribute by countering this misinformation in the scientific literature. This may be a small contribution, but it is still important.

Tom.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

John R. Mashey wrote: > Stephen says: > > Hate to join Tom in being the heavy here, everybody, but does it really matter so much? Sure, politically "follow the money" is the battle cry of investigative media and opponents of whoever someone wants to smear (rightly or wrongly), but McKitrick smears himself enough with bad climate science in my view we don't need much more to assign low confidence to his scientific credibility. If these oh so freedom loving supporters of hacked privacy think climate scientists express impolite and inappropriate frustrations to each other, but the oh-so-pure denier set doesn't, being saints of good scientific ethics of course, why don't they just volunteer to post all their private communications with each other over the past 10 years and we can compare their sainthood to our sinning. Wanna' bet who looks the dirtiest by FAR!!! > > We are all busy, and I am glad some of you carved time out of that packed life to check the sources of support of the forces of darkness, but my cynical side thinks it won't much affect the debate really, since our being honest and increasingly confident based on evidence--now there's a new idea?!@#$%-- hasn't tipped the debate yet to meaningful policy, so how is knowing how many laundered bucks he got going to create a social tipping point? Sure, if you learn something on this go for it, but don't expect much return on investment...A mega heat wave this summer is worth 3 orders of magnitude more in the PR wars--too bad we have to wait for random events since evidence doesn't seem to cut it anymore with the MSM (oh, sorry, jargon, main stream media). > Fight on folks, and maybe remember Bob Dylan's song from what, 40 years ago in my youth--still worth repeating: > Come Senators, Congressmen, please heed the call > Don't block up the doorway, don't stand in the hall > 'Cause he that gets hurt will be he who has stalled > 'Cause the battle outside, raging > Will soon shake your windows and rattle your walls > 'Cause the times they are a-changin' > --that is what we need to be focusing on: getting the times a-changin'--in time to avoid irreversibility in various systems. Not going to be quick or easy... > Cheers, Steve > ======> > 1) I don't think Tom is a heavy, nor John Houghton. I think they are both Good Guy Scientists, but Good Guy Scientists need to avoid both kinds of actions that give aid and comfort to the other side, i.e., either making difficult-to-prove accusations whose answers are mostly irrelevant, or not having quite the precise questions to ask ... and in any case, the answers are indeed generally irrelevant. > (And of course I've talked to Stephen often enough to know he makes a bad heavy. :-)) > > 2) The funding flow study is *for* Congressman & Senators (or their staffs, really), in the hope that there's even a .1% chance somebody will get serious and do an investigation. IF somebody thinks there is even a plausible 18USC1001 case to be made around the whole Wegman episode (and some lawyers have looked at this, and don't think it's fantasy), THEN the funding flow documentation offers a roadmap to roll *up* the machine that feeds CEI, GMI, etc, etc. Put another way: > > a) One can get distracted by trying to prove funding for any given individual. > > b) BUT, if it turns out that there is a plausible case that persons (A, B, C,D, E, F...) have committed a crime, in a conspiracy (18USC371) to do so, then it seems plausible to ask those who funded them uncomfortable questions under oath. That means following the funding chains *backwards*, which is way more important than following them forwards. People like McKitrick are *symptoms*, not root causes, which is why I'd never spend a lot of time obsessing over a few $K that might have come from Exxon. One of my wishful dreams would be to see Richard Mellon Scaife and the Kochs on the witness stand sometime, the way Waxman had the cigarette CEOs up there. > > 3) Of course, were any such thing to ever happen, subpoenas are *way better* than FOIA for prying loose emails. My report showed a few emails that happened to be around from earlier FOIAs, and they offer very good hints of more. Do *not* bet against Stephen regarding what would be found :-) > > 4) I've been taking a wonderful seminar course at Stanford run by Terry Root & Meg Caldwell, "Coping with Climate Change: Life after Copenhagen" with great speakers. > Ben gave a fine, moving talk there earlier in the quarter. (Thanks again, Ben) > > We finished with an interesting talk last Thursday by Stanford's Jon Krosnick, about polling results: > > http://woods.stanford.edu/research/majority-believe-global-warming.html > There is both good news and bad news, and people really should consider looking at this. > The good news will perk you up. > > The bad news ... is the reason for going after the root causes, not just the symptoms. Specifically: > > "Climate skeptics are having some effect on the public’s belief that there is agreement among scientists that global warming is happening." > If you follow that, you get to some videos that Jon showed us Thursday: > http://woods.stanford.edu/research/global-warming-skeptics.html > > "Consequences without skeptic" had an interview with none other than Stephen, and when people saw that, their attitudes became more reality-based. > > But watch the short video "Consequences with skeptic", which adds on Hoover Institution *economist* Thomas Gale Moore (looking just like a sibling of Fred Singer, avuncular, reassuring, certain that more CO2 meant more plants, and we eat plants, so more CO2 is good, blah , blah) > > That level of expertise was enough to cause confusion, in fact, *more than canceling" what Stephen had said. Anyway, watch the video and Jon's analysis. My one critique would be to see if it makes a difference which order the two are shown, since it's well-known that having the last word help. > > I agree 100% with Stephen that it is a waste of time to worry about any little Exxon funding for any particular individual. What might help is throwing rocks into the gears of the machine that recruits, develops, supports, publicizes them, and makes sure they get "equal time" in the MSM. All that is much more relevant than occasional financial payments that might or might not have happened. > > Of course, the next disaster will indeed help more, sigh. > > > > From: Brien Seeley To: Stephen H Schneider Cc: Brien Seeley; [email protected]; Thomas Crowley; [email protected]; Dr. Krishna AchutaRao; Myles Allen; Natalia Andronova; Tim C Atkinson; Rick Anthes; Caspar Ammann; David C. Bader; Tim Barnett; Eric Barron; Graham" "Bench; Pat Berge; George Boer; Celine J. W. Bonfils; James A." "Bono; Mark B" "Boslough; James Boyle; Ray Bradley; Robin Bravender; Keith Briffa; Wolfgang Brueggemann; Lisa Butler; Ken Caldeira; Peter Caldwell; Dan Cayan; Peter U. Clark; Amy Clement; Nancy Cole; William Collins; Tina Conrad; Curtis Covey; birte dar; Davies Trevor Prof; Jay Davis; Tomas Diaz De La Rubia; Andrew Dessler; Michael" "Dettinger; Phil Duffy; Paul J." "Ehlenbach; Kerry Emanuel; James Estes; Veronika" "Eyring; David Fahey; Chris Field; Peter Foukal; Melissa Free; Julio Friedmann; Bill Fulkerson; Inez Fung; Jeff Garberson; PETER GENT; Nathan Gillett; peter gleckler; Bill Goldstein; Hal Graboske; Paul Gross; Tom Guilderson; Leopold Haimberger; Alex Hall; James Hansen; harvey; Klaus Hasselmann; Susan Joy Hassol; Gabi Hegerl; Isaac Held; Bob Hirschfeld; Jeremy Hobbs; Dr. Elisabeth A. Holland; Greg Holland; Brian Hoskins; mhughes; James Hurrell; Ken Jackson; c jakob; Gardar Johannesson; Philip D. Jones; Helen Kang; Thomas R Karl; David Karoly; Jeffrey Kiehl; Steve Klein; Knutti Reto; John Lanzante; [email protected]; Ron Lehman; John lewis; Steven A. "Lloyd (GSFC-610.2)[R S INFORMATION SYSTEMS INC]"; Jane Long; Janice Lough; mann; [email protected]; Linda Mearns; carl mears; Jerry Meehl; Jerry Melillo; George Miller; Norman Miller; Art Mirin; John FB" "Mitchell; Phil Mote; Neville Nicholls; Gerald R. North; Astrid E.J. Ogilvie; Stephanie Ohshita; Tim Osborn; Stu" "Ostro; j palutikof; Joyce Penner; Thomas C Peterson; Tom Phillips; David Pierce; [email protected]; V. Ramaswamy; Veerabhadran" "Ramanathan; Sarah Raper; Phil Rasch; Kathryn Rauhut; Doug Rotman; Terry L. Root; Robert "Sausen, DLR"; jsanter; John Schellnhuber; David Schimel; Michael Schlesinger; Gavin Schmidt; Christina L. Schomer; Lynda Seaver; Dian J. Seidel; Ted Sheppard; s sherwood; Adrian Simmons; socci anthony; brian soden; Susan Solomon; Ken Sperber; Anne Stark; Thomas Stocker; Ronald J Stouffer; [email protected]; Karl Taylor; claudia tebaldi; Joao P" "Teixeira; Simon Tett; Thomas A." "Tombrello; David Thompson; Lonnie Thompson; ELLEN THOMPSON; Peter" "Thorne; Mike Wallace; Bud Ward; David "Warrilow (GA)"; Warren Washington; Andrew Weaver; Michael Wehner; Frank Wentz; Penny" "Whetton; Dean N. Williams; Gordon Yano; Francis W. Zwiers; Erik M" "Conway; Sanjay Khanna; Graham Cogley; Jeffrey Kargel; W. Crawford Elliott; John Weyant; Anthony Janetos; Alison" "Sowden; Vernon Squire; Eric Garen; Peter Cross; Charles Zeller; Ian Murdock; Victoria A Arroyo; Rashida Leonard; Stephanie Fontenoy; John Collee; Sarah-jane Potts; Greg Dutton; Richard B. Rood; Mark Seeley; Oliver Morton; Cheryl H; Richard" "Somerville; Martin Heimann; Don Kennedy; Heidi Cullen; Shari Bell; Rebecca Bratspies; Pete Myers; Michael Oppenheimer; Tom Wigley; Naomi Oreskes Subject: Re: response from Ross McKittrick re: possible Exxon connection Date: Saturday, March 20, 2010 12:40:27 PM

Totally agree with Dr. Schneider; Look ahead and stay mindful that the vivid metaphor often frustrates and trumps the scholarly bullet points.

Brien

Brien A. Seeley M.D., President CAFE Foundation www.cafefoundation.org [email protected] Office: 707-544-0141 Home: 707-526-3925 Cell: 707-484-8721

On Mar 19, 2010, at 7:00 PM, Stephen H Schneider wrote:

Hate to join Tom in being the heavy here, everybody, but does it really matter so much? Sure, politically "follow the money" is the battle cry of investigative media and opponents of whoever someone wants to smear (rightly or wrongly), but McKitrick smears himself enough with bad climate science in my view we don't need much more to assign low confidence to his scientific credibility. If these oh so freedom loving supporters of hacked privacy think climate scientists express impolite and inappropriate frustrations to each other, but the oh-so-pure denier set doesn't, being saints of good scientific ethics of course, why don't they just volunteer to post all their private communications with each other over the past 10 years and we can compare their sainthood to our sinning. Wanna' bet who looks the dirtiest by FAR!!!

We are all busy, and I am glad some of you carved time out of that packed life to check the sources of support of the forces of darkness, but my cynical side thinks it won't much affect the debate really, since our being honest and increasingly confident based on evidence--now there's a new idea?!@#$%--hasn't tipped the debate yet to meaningful policy, so how is knowing how many laundered bucks he got going to create a social tipping point? Sure, if you learn something on this go for it, but don't expect much return on investment...A mega heat wave this summer is worth 3 orders of magnitude more in the PR wars--too bad we have to wait for random events since evidence doesn't seem to cut it anymore with the MSM (oh, sorry, jargon, main stream media). Fight on folks, and maybe remember Bob Dylan's song from what, 40 years ago in my youth--still worth repeating: Come Senators, Congressmen, please heed the call Don't block up the doorway, don't stand in the hall 'Cause he that gets hurt will be he who has stalled 'Cause the battle outside, raging Will soon shake your windows and rattle your walls 'Cause the times they are a-changin' --that is what we need to be focusing on: getting the times a-changin'-- in time to avoid irreversibility in various systems. Not going to be quick or easy... Cheers, Steve

----- Original Message ----- From: "John R. Mashey" < To: "Tom Wigley" , "Naomi Oreskes" Cc: [email protected], "Thomas Crowley" , [email protected], "Dr. Krishna AchutaRao" , "Myles Allen" , "Natalia Andronova" , "Tim C Atkinson" , "Rick Anthes" , "Caspar Ammann" , "David C. Bader" , "Tim Barnett" , "Eric Barron" , "Graham' 'Bench" , "Pat Berge" , "George Boer" , "Celine J. W. Bonfils" , "James A.' 'Bono" , "Mark B' 'Boslough" , "James Boyle" , "Ray Bradley" , "Robin Bravender" , "Keith Briffa" , "Wolfgang Brueggemann" , "Lisa Butler" , "Ken Caldeira" , "Peter Caldwell" , "Dan Cayan" , "Peter U. Clark" , "Amy Clement" , "Nancy Cole" >, "William Collins" , "Tina Conrad" , "Curtis Covey" , "birte dar" < "Davies Trevor Prof" , "Jay Davis" t>, "Tomas Diaz De La Rubia" , "Andrew Dessler" , "Michael' 'Dettinger" , "Phil Duffy" , "Paul J.' 'Ehlenbach" , "Kerry Emanuel" , "James Estes" , "Veronika' 'Eyring" , "David Fahey" , "Chris Field" , "Peter Foukal" < >, "Melissa Free" , "Julio Friedmann" , "Bill Fulkerson" , "Inez Fung" , "Jeff Garberson" < >, "PETER GENT" , "Nathan Gillett" , "peter gleckler" , "Bill Goldstein" , "Hal Graboske" , "Paul Gross" >, "Tom Guilderson" , "Leopold Haimberger" , "Alex Hall" , "James Hansen" , "harvey" , "Klaus Hasselmann" , "Susan Joy Hassol" < "Gabi Hegerl" , "Isaac Held" , "Bob Hirschfeld" , "Jeremy Hobbs" < , "Dr. Elisabeth A. Holland" , "Greg Holland" , "Brian Hoskins" , "mhughes" , "James Hurrell" , "Ken Jackson" , "c jakob" , "Gardar Johannesson" , "Philip D. Jones" , "Helen Kang" , "Thomas R Karl" , "David Karoly" , "Jeffrey Kiehl" , "Steve Klein" , "Knutti Reto" , "John Lanzante" , [email protected], "Ron Lehman" , "John lewis" , "Steven A. 'Lloyd (GSFC-610.2)[R S INFORMATION SYSTEMS INC]'" , "Jane Long" >, "Janice Lough" , "mann" , [email protected], "Linda Mearns" , "carl mears" < >, "Jerry Meehl" , "Jerry Melillo" , "George Miller" , "Norman Miller" , "Art Mirin" , "John FB' 'Mitchell" >, "Phil Mote" , "Neville Nicholls" , "Gerald R. North" , "Astrid E.J. Ogilvie" , "Stephanie Ohshita" , "Tim Osborn" , "Stu' 'Ostro" >, "j palutikof" , "Joyce Penner" , "Thomas C Peterson" , "Tom Phillips" , "David Pierce" , [email protected], "V. Ramaswamy" , "Veerabhadran' 'Ramanathan" , "Sarah Raper" , "Phil Rasch" , "Kathryn Rauhut" , "Doug Rotman" , "Terry L. Root" , "Robert 'Sausen, DLR'" , "jsanter" >, "John Schellnhuber" , "David Schimel" , "Michael Schlesinger" , "Gavin Schmidt" , "Christina L. Schomer" , "Stephen H Schneider" , "Lynda Seaver" , "Dian J. Seidel" , "Ted Sheppard" , "s sherwood" , "Adrian Simmons" , "socci anthony" , "brian soden" , "Susan Solomon" < , "Ken Sperber" , "Anne Stark" , "Thomas Stocker" , "Ronald J Stouffer" , [email protected], "Karl Taylor" , "claudia tebaldi" < "Joao P' 'Teixeira" , "Simon Tett" , "Thomas A.' 'Tombrello" , "David Thompson" , "Lonnie Thompson" , "ELLEN THOMPSON" , "Peter' 'Thorne" , "Mike Wallace" , "Bud Ward" < "David 'Warrilow (GA)'" , "Warren Washington" , "Andrew Weaver" , "Michael Wehner" , "Frank Wentz" >, "Penny' 'Whetton" , "Dean N. Williams" , "Gordon Yano" , "Francis W. Zwiers" , "Erik M' 'Conway" , "Sanjay Khanna" < >, "Graham Cogley" , "Jeffrey Kargel" "W. Crawford Elliott" , "John Weyant" , "Anthony Janetos" , "Alison' 'Sowden" , "Vernon Squire" , "Eric Garen" < >, "Peter Cross" >, "Charles Zeller" , "Ian Murdock" "Victoria A Arroyo" , "Rashida Leonard" , "Stephanie Fontenoy" , "John Collee" >, "Sarah-jane Potts" < >, "Greg Dutton" < >, "Richard B. Rood" , "Brien Seeley" "Mark Seeley" , "Oliver Morton" , "Cheryl_H" < >, "Richard' 'Somerville" , "Martin Heimann" , "Don Kennedy" , "Heidi Cullen" , "Shari Bell" >, "Rebecca Bratspies" , "Pete Myers" , "Michael Oppenheimer" Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 5:58:58 PM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific Subject: RE: response from Ross McKittrick re: possible Exxon connection

On the other hand, I presume that there is no evidence that McKitrick received any such indirect funds. So ... let us not simply *assume* guilt, which seems to be the tenor of some of these emails.

Tom.

+++++++++++++++++++++++ Assuming guilt is certainly bad, and even counterproductive. Rather than trying to disentangle the confusion caused by misframed comments or questions, it might help to see what is *actually* known and unknown about: (a) climate anti-science money flow mechanisms in general and (b) A bit on how that might apply to McKitrick in particular. That seems generally less important, equivalent to inferring global temperature trends by reading a thermometer located inside a refrigerator. At best, even taking out of the fridge wouldn't tell you much.

I've spent much of the last month or so trying to track down and quantify (a), which I think is much more complex than for the tobacco wars, at least the earlier phases. It is very difficult to quantify (b), and is probably not even event important, as it is more a diversion than anything else.

MOST OF YOU WOULD LIKELY SKIP THIS (LONG) EMAIL, but if you talk to the press or otherwise opine publicly, or care to understand how the funding really works for climate anti-science, PLEASE READ ON. I have often counseled people to avoid over-emphasizing ExxonMobil (EM) and especially to avoid saying anything about direct payments from EM to "expert spokespeople", because they basically don't exist, as K.T. and N.O. said.

But even if they did exist, they are far less relevant than other money flows and structures. All this properly belongs more to good investigative journalism, but the professionals there are less in evidence lately, leaving it to us amateurs to do what we can.

The page numbers reference: http://www.desmogblog.com/crescendo-climategate-cacophony (new, major upgrade to that earlier piece) That's 185 pages, but most people can look at the first 4 to see if there's anything they want to read. Print pages 2-4 for navigation, then open the PDF with 2 windows to read mainline & Appendices. This wasn't written to address the question that started all this, so the discussion is not in any one section, but it does have much relevant data. OUTLINE: 0) EUPHEMISTIC NAMES 1) MONEY-LAUNDERING NET 2) FOUNDATIONS =$$=> THINK TANKS 3) THE MISSING MONEY, >50% 4) MONEY IS NOT THE ONLY CURRENCY ANYWAY, AND OFTEN NOT THE MOST IMPORTANT 5) MCKITRICK ======0) EUPHEMISTIC NAMES (says K.T.): for sure. See "What's in a Name?" P.50. "Foundation", "Institute", "Science" are popular. Many are tax-free 501(c)3s, but curiously located within a block of Washington's K Street (lobbyist central). Zoom in on: http://maps.google.com/maps/ms? hl=en&ie=UTF8&msa=0&msid=10794082518951777198 1.0004815492d08b0c445f9&ll=38.882481,- 76.978455&spn=0.771829,1.253815&z=10 Whether these 501(c)3's break any laws on lobbying limits is beyond me, and those laws are a bit vague. For sure, many of these *seem* like tax-free ways to do lobbying and PR.

2) FOUNDATIONS =$$=> THINK TANKS- TABLE A.6.1, pp. 93-95. This shows multi-year funding totals for various family foundations (of which the top-10 are especially relevant) and for the EM foundation (two separate analyses of the same thing). The table shows tobacco connections, $ funding here, and nonprofit 501(c)3 or equivalent status elsewhere. CHC (Cooler Heads Coalition) is a front, run by CEI (Competitive Enterprise Institute), but whose members mostly are think tanks funded by the same foundations, so money flows are murky. For the Heartland conferences (Heart#1,#2,#3) cosponsors are marked, but one cannot tell whether they paid money to Heartland, or the reverse...

EM The EM money shown is only that fraction of their funding made public by having it flow through their Foundation. As shown in Table A.6.1(c), p.95, the total is $11M-$14M, WHICH IS ROUNDING ERROR FOR EM. Table A.2.1, p.45 shows 2001-2008 EM foundation funding of each think tank by year. I still don't really understand why they did it this way, since it made those numbers public, for which they have taken much flak. It seems likely that EM spends more money through API, through lobbyists, for political donations or directly to other organizations (but rarely to individual spokespeople). They have occasionally slipped:

For example (p.156), the well-remembered 2003 Soon & Baliunas Climate Research paper acknowledged: "This scientific research was supported by generous grants from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, American Petroleum Institute, and Exxon- Mobil Corporation. The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and are independent of sources providing support." Yes, certainly :-)

SCAIFE (p.47-48) The Allegheny, Carthage, and SSF (Sarah Scaife) Foundations are all run by Richard Mellon Scaife, i.e., includes Gulf Oil ===> Chevron money. Scaife's personal holdings (big) and any personal donations are unknown to me, but the published stock holdings of Carthage + SSF are highest for TOBACCO ($29.3m) AND OIL-RELATED ($28.4m). Oddly, Chevron ($2.2M) is far outweighed by EM ($22.6M).

KOCH (p.47) The C.G.Koch, C.R.Lambe, and D.H.Koch foundations are controlled by the Koch family, i.e., sons of the guy who cofounded the John Birch Society, and owners of Koch Industries, i.e., Big Oil&Gas. The foundation $$$ are shown, but Koch Industries itself is James Inhofe's #1 contributor, ahead of EM. (p.130). But then, EM also takes care of Joe Barton (p.110.) The Kochs must laugh at EM for taking the flak it does for funding think tanks.

EARHART This stared with White Star Oil. That leaves OLIN & BRADLEY foundations without obvious oil ties.

3) THE MISSING MONEY, >50% By rummaging through most think tank's "990" forms, or summaries thereof, one can see their revenues, although rarely will they ever say anything about who gave them the money. One can compare that with the numbers from Foundation giving, and the difference is UNKNOWN.

One can do a simple "attribution analysis", p.46. E: EM Foundation F: Family Foundations, which have varying degrees of fossil-relatedness. U: Unknown: could be direct from EM or other corporations, or individuals, or (retired EM executives given consulting money to be donated somewhere), or PR agencies, or intermediate foundations (like Atlas), or fronts, or industry associations.

Here are the percentages of 5 think tanks: E, F, U: 16%, 0%, 84%: Annapolis Center 6%, 15%, 78%: CEI - Competitive Enterprise Institute 13%, 33%, 53%: CFACT; recent boost in funding not long before Morano arrived 9%, 55%, 36%: GMI - George C. Marshall Institute 2%, 10%, 87%: Heartland, huge boost in funding in last few years.... but UNKNOWN source.

BOTTOM LINE: we do NOT know where even half of their money really comes from, and the *visible* EM money is not a big piece of this. I do not know whether funds given to think tanks are targeted for specific projects or individuals, but the latter seem especially unlikely. I would bet that each year, fundees extol their accomplishments and abilities to potential funders, competing for (relatively small) amounts of money. They probably get checks categorized as "in support of sound science and education", or something like that. [Why would I bet this? Well, such sorts of things show up in the Tobacco Archives, and many of these think tanks have tobacco connections. (p.68)]

Since 2001, GMI's CEO has been William O'keefe (p.144), an EM registered lobbyist in 2005, and a 25-veteran of the API. It is not unthinkable that the unknown GMI money might have a little oil in it, although there is likely some aerospace/defense money not found in many others.

CEI, CFACT, GMI and SEPP (Fred Singer's then-wife) were all involved in the 1998 GCSCT project (p.19-20, p.82)) organized by the API, and including attendance by Randy Randol (p.147), who some of you may know as the senior EM lobbyist who wrote to GWBush wishing to remove Bob Watson from IPCC, and replace Bierbaum & MacCracken with Christy and Lindzen.

I didn't do the Fraser Institute here; Deep Climate knows them much better, as does Donald Gutstein (reference [GUT2009][ on p.38]. They've gotten a little money from EM foundation, not much. Dothey get money from Imperial Oil? (70%-owned by EM). I don't know.

4) MONEY IS NOT THE ONLY CURRENCY ANYWAY, AND OFTEN NOT THE MOST IMPORTANT Figs 2.5-2.6, pp13-14 catalog reasons people might do anti-science only a few of which are directly financial. Of the many Heartland speakers, at least some probably never get asked to talk anywhere else (PSY3 - attention, publicity). Notoriety may be a goal, or it may be an indirect way of making other money by selling books, having speaking invitations, other consulting, or just getting paid trips to speak for appreciative audiences.

(It actually seems slightly weird to have a bunch of very distinguished scientists worrying about relatively small money flows. All of you are easily smart enough to have made more money in careers other than science ... as was discovered by some of my Bell Labs colleagues when they left a downsizing BTL for Wall Street... If anybody knows that people do things for many reasons other than money, it should be you!)

In any case, I suspect EM pays lobbyists and PR agencies well. It gets terrific leverage from think tanks with relatively miniscule amounts of money, and rarely gives big consulting money directly to spokespeople, because they are far more valuable if they can say "No EM money." Any why not? Scaife and Koch can be relied to help out, and the rest of the oil folks via API.

HENCE, even if one knew exact details of funding paths for some individual, it really doesn't mean much. What counts is the overall structure of Fig 2.1 (p.10), and that's what that money really goes for, I think. This structure is more complex than the early days of tobacco, and is very confusing, with multiple think tanks and fronts coming and going, and competing for funding, and cooperating otherwise. It would be astonishing if this were not on purpose...

Looking at one individual is a bit akin to obsession with one groundstation, but given the impetus:

5) MCKITRICK It is nontrivial to prove many indirect payments, but there are lots of plausible questions. a) McKitrick (and McIntyre) did have trips paid to Washington via CEI or GMI.

How does one count being heavily promoted around Washington (Ebell (CEI) p.120, A.9.2, p.162, etc), and being introduced to Inhofe and being promoted by him? And later, Barton? I have no idea how to place monetary value on that, but PR is worth something. How often is such exposure available to Guelph professors? How about getting written up on first page of WSJ? b) He wrote that piece for CEI. Maybe there a few EM $$ there, but not many. I'd never make a big deal of that. c) Of course, working with GMI means working with O'keefe, i.e., close to API & EM, which I actually consider more relevant than the EM portion of any possible small fees. d) He became a GMI "expert" in 2004. That may well be unpaid, as many people sign up to be "advisors" or "Experts." He was also a Heartland Expert (HeartExp#1, p.97). e) McKitrick in 2007 was the "Coordinator" for the ISPM produced by Fraser: http://www.fraserinstitute.org/COMMERCE.WEB/product_files/Independen t%20Summ ary5.pdf (Writers: D'Aleo, Khandekar, Kinninmonth, Essex, Karlen, Karner, Clark, Murty, O'Brien. I really should have included that in my report). This is a nicely-produced document. Did anyone get paid for this work? Who knows? It could be, or people might happily do it for free to keep their names out there. f) Table A.6.2(a) Shows people versus activities. McKitrick spoke at the 2008 and 2009 Heartland conferences in NYC. Did he get any expenses paid? If so, where did that money come from? (That one is really murky). f) He spoke at Helmer2009 (p.86) in Europe. g) For more oil connections, see p.138. Of the 4 think tanks he mentions there: SPPI (p.74): ??, but SPPI's Rob Ferguson was EM-funded just before he spunoff. CO2Science (CSCDGC, p.57) some money from EM and SSF Friends of Science (FoS) - Alberta oil CEI - shown above. h) See his short C.V: http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/cv.html (his 2003 book with Essex) "was awarded the $10,000 Donner Prize for Best Book on Canadian Public Policy." That sounds good...

"The annual Donner Awards, sponsored by the Donner Canadian Foundation and administered by the Fraser Institute," http://www.fraserinstitute.org/newsandevents/news/6977.aspx

"Professor McKitrick has been cited in media around the world as an expert on the science and policy of global warming. He has made invited academic presentations in Canada, the US and Europe, and has testified before the US Congress and the Canadian Parliamentary Finance and Environment Committees. In 2006 he was one of 12 experts from around the world asked to brief a panel of the US National Academy of Sciences on paleoclimate reconstruction methodology."

5) SUMMARY "X is paid by Exxon" is usually very unlikely, and it's unfortunately a fairly useless question that in fact, people would *like* to be asked, because they can say NO.

The money-laundering architecture is brilliantly designed, with only rare slipups. a) Direct payments: almost never findable, if they exist at all. b) Indirect payments for work, as Heartland paying $140K to Fred Singer for NIPCC: sometimes. c) Indirect payments for expenses, maybe speakers' fees: sometimes. There are many more ways to steer money to somebody without leaving obvious tracks. d) Hard-to-calibrate worth of publicity, contact, etc: very often, and very cost-effective, as "wish for attention" is a powerful motivator, and it is very cheap. From: John R. Mashey To: "Stephen H Schneider" Cc: [email protected]; "Thomas Crowley"; [email protected]; "Dr. Krishna AchutaRao"; "Myles Allen"; "Natalia Andronova"; "Tim C Atkinson"; "Rick Anthes"; "Caspar Ammann"; "David C. Bader"; "Tim Barnett"; "Eric Barron"; "Graham" "Bench"; "Pat Berge"; "George Boer"; "Celine J. W. Bonfils"; "James A." "Bono"; "Mark B" "Boslough"; "James Boyle"; "Ray Bradley"; "Robin Bravender"; "Keith Briffa"; "Wolfgang Brueggemann"; "Lisa Butler"; "Ken Caldeira"; "Peter Caldwell"; "Dan Cayan"; "Peter U. Clark"; "Amy Clement"; "Nancy Cole"; "William Collins"; "Tina Conrad"; "Curtis Covey"; "birte dar"; "Davies Trevor Prof"; "Jay Davis"; "Tomas Diaz De La Rubia"; "Andrew Dessler"; "Michael" "Dettinger"; "Phil Duffy"; "Paul J." "Ehlenbach"; "Kerry Emanuel"; "James Estes"; "Veronika" "Eyring"; "David Fahey"; "Chris Field"; "Peter Foukal"; "Melissa Free"; "Julio Friedmann"; "Bill Fulkerson"; "Inez Fung"; "Jeff Garberson"; "PETER GENT"; "Nathan Gillett"; "peter gleckler"; "Bill Goldstein"; "Hal Graboske"; "Paul Gross"; "Tom Guilderson"; "Leopold Haimberger"; "Alex Hall"; "James Hansen"; "harvey"; "Klaus Hasselmann"; "Susan Joy Hassol"; "Gabi Hegerl"; "Isaac Held"; "Bob Hirschfeld"; "Jeremy Hobbs"; "Dr. Elisabeth A. Holland"; "Greg Holland"; "Brian Hoskins"; "mhughes"; "James Hurrell"; "Ken Jackson"; "c jakob"; "Gardar Johannesson"; "Philip D. Jones"; "Helen Kang"; "Thomas R Karl"; "David Karoly"; "Jeffrey Kiehl"; "Steve Klein"; "Knutti Reto"; "John Lanzante"; [email protected]; "Ron Lehman"; "John lewis"; "Steven A. "Lloyd (GSFC-610.2)[R S INFORMATION SYSTEMS INC]""; "Jane Long"; "Janice Lough"; "mann"; [email protected]; "Linda Mearns"; "carl mears"; "Jerry Meehl"; "Jerry Melillo"; "George Miller"; "Norman Miller"; "Art Mirin"; "John FB" "Mitchell"; "Phil Mote"; "Neville Nicholls"; "Gerald R. North"; "Astrid E.J. Ogilvie"; "Stephanie Ohshita"; "Tim Osborn"; "Stu" "Ostro"; "j palutikof"; "Joyce Penner"; "Thomas C Peterson"; "Tom Phillips"; "David Pierce"; [email protected]; "V. Ramaswamy"; "Veerabhadran" "Ramanathan"; "Sarah Raper"; "Phil Rasch"; "Kathryn Rauhut"; "Doug Rotman"; "Terry L. Root"; "Robert "Sausen, DLR""; "jsanter"; "John Schellnhuber"; "David Schimel"; "Michael Schlesinger"; "Gavin Schmidt"; "Christina L. Schomer"; "Lynda Seaver"; "Dian J. Seidel"; "Ted Sheppard"; "s sherwood"; "Adrian Simmons"; "socci anthony"; "brian soden"; "Susan Solomon"; "Ken Sperber"; "Anne Stark"; "Thomas Stocker"; "Ronald J Stouffer"; [email protected]; "Karl Taylor"; "claudia tebaldi"; "Joao P" "Teixeira"; "Simon Tett"; "Thomas A." "Tombrello"; "David Thompson"; "Lonnie Thompson"; "ELLEN THOMPSON"; "Peter" "Thorne"; "Mike Wallace"; "Bud Ward"; "David "Warrilow (GA)""; "Warren Washington"; "Andrew Weaver"; "Michael Wehner"; "Frank Wentz"; "Penny" "Whetton"; "Dean N. Williams"; "Gordon Yano"; "Francis W. Zwiers"; "Erik M" "Conway"; "Sanjay Khanna"; "Graham Cogley"; "Jeffrey Kargel"; "W. Crawford Elliott"; "John Weyant"; "Anthony Janetos"; "Alison" "Sowden"; "Vernon Squire"; "Eric Garen"; "Peter Cross"; "Charles Zeller"; "Ian Murdock"; "Victoria A Arroyo"; "Rashida Leonard"; "Stephanie Fontenoy"; "John Collee"; "Sarah-jane Potts"; "Greg Dutton"; "Richard B. Rood"; "Brien Seeley"; "Mark Seeley"; "Oliver Morton"; "Cheryl H"; "Richard" "Somerville"; "Martin Heimann"; "Don Kennedy"; "Heidi Cullen"; "Shari Bell"; "Rebecca Bratspies"; "Pete Myers"; "Michael Oppenheimer"; "Tom Wigley"; "Naomi Oreskes" Subject: RE: response from Ross McKittrick re: possible Exxon connection Date: Saturday, March 20, 2010 12:32:05 PM

Stephen says:

We are all busy, and I am glad some of you carved time out of that packed life to check the sources of support of the forces of darkness, but my cynical side thinks it won't much affect the debate really, since our being honest and increasingly confident based on evidence--now there's a new idea?!@#$%-- hasn't tipped the debate yet to meaningful policy, so how is knowing how many laundered bucks he got going to create a social tipping point? Sure, if you learn something on this go for it, but don't expect much return on investment...A mega heat wave this summer is worth 3 orders of magnitude more in the PR wars--too bad we have to wait for random events since evidence doesn't seem to cut it anymore with the MSM (oh, sorry, jargon, main stream media). Fight on folks, and maybe remember Bob Dylan's song from what, 40 years ago in my youth--still worth repeating: Come Senators, Congressmen, please heed the call Don't block up the doorway, don't stand in the hall 'Cause he that gets hurt will be he who has stalled 'Cause the battle outside, raging Will soon shake your windows and rattle your walls 'Cause the times they are a-changin' --that is what we need to be focusing on: getting the times a-changin'--in time to avoid irreversibility in various systems. Not going to be quick or easy... Cheers, Steve ======

1) I don't think Tom is a heavy, nor John Houghton. I think they are both Good Guy Scientists, but Good Guy Scientists need to avoid both kinds of actions that give aid and comfort to the other side, i.e., either making difficult-to-prove accusations whose answers are mostly irrelevant, or not having quite the precise questions to ask ... and in any case, the answers are indeed generally irrelevant. (And of course I've talked to Stephen often enough to know he makes a bad heavy. :-))

2) The funding flow study is *for* Congressman & Senators (or their staffs, really), in the hope that there's even a .1% chance somebody will get serious and do an investigation. IF somebody thinks there is even a plausible 18USC1001 case to be made around the whole Wegman episode (and some lawyers have looked at this, and don't think it's fantasy), THEN the funding flow documentation offers a roadmap to roll *up* the machine that feeds CEI, GMI, etc, etc. Put another way: a) One can get distracted by trying to prove funding for any given individual. b) BUT, if it turns out that there is a plausible case that persons (A, B, C,D, E, F...) have committed a crime, in a conspiracy (18USC371) to do so, then it seems plausible to ask those who funded them uncomfortable questions under oath. That means following the funding chains *backwards*, which is way more important than following them forwards. People like McKitrick are *symptoms*, not root causes, which is why I'd never spend a lot of time obsessing over a few $K that might have come from Exxon. One of my wishful dreams would be to see Richard Mellon Scaife and the Kochs on the witness stand sometime, the way Waxman had the cigarette CEOs up there.

3) Of course, were any such thing to ever happen, subpoenas are *way better* than FOIA for prying loose emails. My report showed a few emails that happened to be around from earlier FOIAs, and they offer very good hints of more. Do *not* bet against Stephen regarding what would be found :-)

4) I've been taking a wonderful seminar course at Stanford run by Terry Root & Meg Caldwell, "Coping with Climate Change: Life after Copenhagen" with great speakers. Ben gave a fine, moving talk there earlier in the quarter. (Thanks again, Ben)

We finished with an interesting talk last Thursday by Stanford's Jon Krosnick, about polling results: http://woods.stanford.edu/research/majority-believe-global-warming.html There is both good news and bad news, and people really should consider looking at this. The good news will perk you up.

The bad news ... is the reason for going after the root causes, not just the symptoms. Specifically:

"Climate skeptics are having some effect on the public’s belief that there is agreement among scientists that global warming is happening." If you follow that, you get to some videos that Jon showed us Thursday: http://woods.stanford.edu/research/global-warming-skeptics.html

"Consequences without skeptic" had an interview with none other than Stephen, and when people saw that, their attitudes became more reality-based.

But watch the short video "Consequences with skeptic", which adds on Hoover Institution *economist* Thomas Gale Moore (looking just like a sibling of Fred Singer, avuncular, reassuring, certain that more CO2 meant more plants, and we eat plants, so more CO2 is good, blah , blah)

That level of expertise was enough to cause confusion, in fact, *more than canceling" what Stephen had said. Anyway, watch the video and Jon's analysis. My one critique would be to see if it makes a difference which order the two are shown, since it's well-known that having the last word help. I agree 100% with Stephen that it is a waste of time to worry about any little Exxon funding for any particular individual. What might help is throwing rocks into the gears of the machine that recruits, develops, supports, publicizes them, and makes sure they get "equal time" in the MSM. All that is much more relevant than occasional financial payments that might or might not have happened.

Of course, the next disaster will indeed help more, sigh. From: Stephen H Schneider To: Cc: [email protected]; Thomas Crowley; [email protected]; Dr. Krishna AchutaRao; Myles Allen; Natalia Andronova; Tim C Atkinson; Rick Anthes; Caspar Ammann; David C. Bader; Tim Barnett; Eric Barron; Graham" "Bench; Pat Berge; George Boer; Celine J. W. Bonfils; James A." "Bono; Mark B" "Boslough; James Boyle; Ray Bradley; Robin Bravender; Keith Briffa; Wolfgang Brueggemann; Lisa Butler; Ken Caldeira; Peter Caldwell; Dan Cayan; Peter U. Clark; Amy Clement; Nancy Cole; William Collins; Tina Conrad; Curtis Covey; birte dar; Davies Trevor Prof; Jay Davis; Tomas Diaz De La Rubia; Andrew Dessler; Michael" "Dettinger; Phil Duffy; Paul J." "Ehlenbach; Kerry Emanuel; James Estes; Veronika" "Eyring; David Fahey; Chris Field; Peter Foukal; Melissa Free; Julio Friedmann; Bill Fulkerson; Inez Fung; Jeff Garberson; PETER GENT; Nathan Gillett; peter gleckler; Bill Goldstein; Hal Graboske; Paul Gross; Tom Guilderson; Leopold Haimberger; Alex Hall; James Hansen; harvey; Klaus Hasselmann; Susan Joy Hassol; Gabi Hegerl; Isaac Held; Bob Hirschfeld; Jeremy Hobbs; Dr. Elisabeth A. Holland; Greg Holland; Brian Hoskins; mhughes; James Hurrell; Ken Jackson; c jakob; Gardar Johannesson; Philip D. Jones; Helen Kang; Thomas R Karl; David Karoly; Jeffrey Kiehl; Steve Klein; Knutti Reto; John Lanzante; [email protected]; Ron Lehman; John lewis; Steven A. "Lloyd (GSFC-610.2)[R S INFORMATION SYSTEMS INC]"; Jane Long; Janice Lough; mann; [email protected]; Linda Mearns; carl mears; Jerry Meehl; Jerry Melillo; George Miller; Norman Miller; Art Mirin; John FB" "Mitchell; Phil Mote; Neville Nicholls; Gerald R. North; Astrid E.J. Ogilvie; Stephanie Ohshita; Tim Osborn; Stu" "Ostro; j palutikof; Joyce Penner; Thomas C Peterson; Tom Phillips; David Pierce; [email protected]; V. Ramaswamy; Veerabhadran" "Ramanathan; Sarah Raper; Phil Rasch; Kathryn Rauhut; Doug Rotman; Terry L. Root; Robert "Sausen, DLR"; jsanter; John Schellnhuber; David Schimel; Michael Schlesinger; Gavin Schmidt; Christina L. Schomer; Lynda Seaver; Dian J. Seidel; Ted Sheppard; s sherwood; Adrian Simmons; socci anthony; brian soden; Susan Solomon; Ken Sperber; Anne Stark; Thomas Stocker; Ronald J Stouffer; [email protected]; Karl Taylor; claudia tebaldi; Joao P" "Teixeira; Simon Tett; Thomas A." "Tombrello; David Thompson; Lonnie Thompson; ELLEN THOMPSON; Peter" "Thorne; Mike Wallace; Bud Ward; David "Warrilow (GA)"; Warren Washington; Andrew Weaver; Michael Wehner; Frank Wentz; Penny" "Whetton; Dean N. Williams; Gordon Yano; Francis W. Zwiers; Erik M" "Conway; Sanjay Khanna; Graham Cogley; Jeffrey Kargel; W. Crawford Elliott; John Weyant; Anthony Janetos; Alison" "Sowden; Vernon Squire; Eric Garen; Peter Cross; Charles Zeller; Ian Murdock; Victoria A Arroyo; Rashida Leonard; Stephanie Fontenoy; John Collee; Sarah-jane Potts; Greg Dutton; Richard B. Rood; Brien Seeley; Mark Seeley; Oliver Morton; Cheryl H; Richard" "Somerville; Martin Heimann; Don Kennedy; Heidi Cullen; Shari Bell; Rebecca Bratspies; Pete Myers; Michael Oppenheimer; Tom Wigley; Naomi Oreskes Subject: Re: response from Ross McKittrick re: possible Exxon connection Date: Friday, March 19, 2010 9:00:34 PM

We are all busy, and I am glad some of you carved time out of that packed life to check the sources of support of the forces of darkness, but my cynical side thinks it won't much affect the debate really, since our being honest and increasingly confident based on evidence--now there's a new idea?!@#$%-- hasn't tipped the debate yet to meaningful policy, so how is knowing how many laundered bucks he got going to create a social tipping point? Sure, if you learn something on this go for it, but don't expect much return on investment...A mega heat wave this summer is worth 3 orders of magnitude more in the PR wars--too bad we have to wait for random events since evidence doesn't seem to cut it anymore with the MSM (oh, sorry, jargon, main stream media). Fight on folks, and maybe remember Bob Dylan's song from what, 40 years ago in my youth--still worth repeating: Come Senators, Congressmen, please heed the call Don't block up the doorway, don't stand in the hall 'Cause he that gets hurt will be he who has stalled 'Cause the battle outside, raging Will soon shake your windows and rattle your walls 'Cause the times they are a-changin' --that is what we need to be focusing on: getting the times a-changin'--in time to avoid irreversibility in various systems. Not going to be quick or easy... Cheers, Steve Stephen H. Schneider Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies, Professor, Department of Biology and Senior Fellow, Woods Institute for the Environment Mailing address: Yang & Yamazaki Environment & Energy Building - MC 4205 473 Via Ortega Ph: 650 725 9978 F: 650 725 4387 Websites: climatechange.net patientfromhell.org

----- Original Message ----- From: "John R. Mashey" < To: "Tom Wigley" , "Naomi Oreskes" Cc: [email protected], "Thomas Crowley" , [email protected], "Dr. Krishna AchutaRao" , "Myles Allen" , "Natalia Andronova" , "Tim C Atkinson" , "Rick Anthes" , "Caspar Ammann" , "David C. Bader" , "Tim Barnett" , "Eric Barron" , "Graham' 'Bench" , "Pat Berge" , "George Boer" , "Celine J. W. Bonfils" , "James A.' 'Bono" , "Mark B' 'Boslough" , "James Boyle" , "Ray Bradley" , "Robin Bravender" , "Keith Briffa" , "Wolfgang Brueggemann" , "Lisa Butler" , "Ken Caldeira" , "Peter Caldwell" , "Dan Cayan" , "Peter U. Clark" , "Amy Clement" , "Nancy Cole" , "William Collins" , "Tina Conrad" , "Curtis Covey" , "birte dar" < "Davies Trevor Prof" , "Jay Davis" , "Tomas Diaz De La Rubia" , "Andrew Dessler" , "Michael' 'Dettinger" , "Phil Duffy" , "Paul J.' 'Ehlenbach" , "Kerry Emanuel" , "James Estes" , "Veronika' 'Eyring" , "David Fahey" , "Chris Field" , "Peter Foukal" "Melissa Free" , "Julio Friedmann" , "Bill Fulkerson" , "Inez Fung" , "Jeff Garberson" < >, "PETER GENT" , "Nathan Gillett" , "peter gleckler" , "Bill Goldstein" , "Hal Graboske" , "Paul Gross" < >, "Tom Guilderson" , "Leopold Haimberger" , "Alex Hall" , "James Hansen" , "harvey" , "Klaus Hasselmann" , "Susan Joy Hassol" "Gabi Hegerl" , "Isaac Held" , "Bob Hirschfeld" , "Jeremy Hobbs" < "Dr. Elisabeth A. Holland" , "Greg Holland" , "Brian Hoskins" , "mhughes" , "James Hurrell" , "Ken Jackson" , "c jakob" , "Gardar Johannesson" , "Philip D. Jones" , "Helen Kang" , "Thomas R Karl" , "David Karoly" , "Jeffrey Kiehl" , "Steve Klein" , "Knutti Reto" , "John Lanzante" , [email protected], "Ron Lehman" , "John lewis" , "Steven A. 'Lloyd (GSFC- 610.2)[R S INFORMATION SYSTEMS INC]'" , "Jane Long" "Janice Lough" , "mann" , [email protected], "Linda Mearns" , "carl mears" , "Jerry Meehl" , "Jerry Melillo" , "George Miller" , "Norman Miller" , "Art Mirin" , "John FB' 'Mitchell" , "Phil Mote" , "Neville Nicholls" , "Gerald R. North" , "Astrid E.J. Ogilvie" , "Stephanie Ohshita" , "Tim Osborn" , "Stu' 'Ostro" < , "j palutikof" , "Joyce Penner" , "Thomas C Peterson" , "Tom Phillips" , "David Pierce" , [email protected], "V. Ramaswamy" , "Veerabhadran' 'Ramanathan" , "Sarah Raper" , "Phil Rasch" , "Kathryn Rauhut" , "Doug Rotman" , "Terry L. Root" , "Robert 'Sausen, DLR'" , "jsanter" , "John Schellnhuber" , "David Schimel" , "Michael Schlesinger" , "Gavin Schmidt" , "Christina L. Schomer" , "Stephen H Schneider" , "Lynda Seaver" , "Dian J. Seidel" , "Ted Sheppard" , "s sherwood" , "Adrian Simmons" , "socci anthony" , "brian soden" , "Susan Solomon" "Ken Sperber" , "Anne Stark" , "Thomas Stocker" , "Ronald J Stouffer" , [email protected], "Karl Taylor" , "claudia tebaldi" < >, "Joao P' 'Teixeira" , "Simon Tett" , "Thomas A.' 'Tombrello" , "David Thompson" , "Lonnie Thompson" , "ELLEN THOMPSON" , "Peter' 'Thorne" , "Mike Wallace" , "Bud Ward" < , "David 'Warrilow (GA)'" , "Warren Washington" , "Andrew Weaver" , "Michael Wehner" , "Frank Wentz" , "Penny' 'Whetton" , "Dean N. Williams" , "Gordon Yano" , "Francis W. Zwiers" , "Erik M' 'Conway" , "Sanjay Khanna" >, "Graham Cogley" , "Jeffrey Kargel" , "W. Crawford Elliott" , "John Weyant" , "Anthony Janetos" , "Alison' 'Sowden" >, "Vernon Squire" , "Eric Garen" , "Peter Cross" < "Charles Zeller" , "Ian Murdock" , "Victoria A Arroyo" , "Rashida Leonard" , "Stephanie Fontenoy" >, "John Collee" < , "Sarah-jane Potts" < "Greg Dutton" < "Richard B. Rood" , "Brien Seeley" "Mark Seeley" , "Oliver Morton" < "Cheryl_H" >, "Richard' 'Somerville" , "Martin Heimann" , "Don Kennedy" , "Heidi Cullen" < , "Shari Bell" "Rebecca Bratspies" , "Pete Myers" >, "Michael Oppenheimer" Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 5:58:58 PM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific Subject: RE: response from Ross McKittrick re: possible Exxon connection

On the other hand, I presume that there is no evidence that McKitrick received any such indirect funds. So ... let us not simply *assume* guilt, which seems to be the tenor of some of these emails.

Tom.

The page numbers reference: http://www.desmogblog.com/crescendo-climategate-cacophony (new, major upgrade to that earlier piece) That's 185 pages, but most people can look at the first 4 to see if there's anything they want to read. Print pages 2-4 for navigation, then open the PDF with 2 windows to read mainline & Appendices. This wasn't written to address the question that started all this, so the discussion is not in any one section, but it does have much relevant data. OUTLINE: 0) EUPHEMISTIC NAMES 1) MONEY-LAUNDERING NET 2) FOUNDATIONS =$$=> THINK TANKS 3) THE MISSING MONEY, >50% 4) MONEY IS NOT THE ONLY CURRENCY ANYWAY, AND OFTEN NOT THE MOST IMPORTANT 5) MCKITRICK ======0) EUPHEMISTIC NAMES (says K.T.): for sure. See "What's in a Name?" P.50. "Foundation", "Institute", "Science" are popular. Many are tax-free 501(c)3s, but curiously located within a block of Washington's K Street (lobbyist central). Zoom in on: http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en&ie=UTF8&msa=0&msid=10794082518951777198 1.0004815492d08b0c445f9&ll=38.882481,-76.978455&spn=0.771829,1.253815&z=10 Whether these 501(c)3's break any laws on lobbying limits is beyond me, and those laws are a bit vague. For sure, many of these *seem* like tax-free ways to do lobbying and PR.

1) MONEY-LAUNDERING NET - Fig 2.1, Anti-Science Flow of Money and memes, p.10 This has a $$$-filled black cloud, through which exist an amazing variety of paths, but almost never direct from EM to spokespeople (the red box). That diagram oversimplifies, because sometimes money goes through Think Tanks to Fronts, or Fronts (especially trade associations like API (American Petroleum Institute, p.54) to Think tanks, and sometimes through PR agencies. There are other routes as well. 2) FOUNDATIONS =$$=> THINK TANKS- TABLE A.6.1, pp. 93-95. This shows multi-year funding totals for various family foundations (of which the top-10 are especially relevant) and for the EM foundation (two separate analyses of the same thing). The table shows tobacco connections, $ funding here, and nonprofit 501(c)3 or equivalent status elsewhere. CHC (Cooler Heads Coalition) is a front, run by CEI (Competitive Enterprise Institute), but whose members mostly are think tanks funded by the same foundations, so money flows are murky. For the Heartland conferences (Heart#1,#2,#3) cosponsors are marked, but one cannot tell whether they paid money to Heartland, or the reverse...

For example (p.156), the well-remembered 2003 Soon & Baliunas Climate Research paper acknowledged: "This scientific research was supported by generous grants from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, American Petroleum Institute, and Exxon-Mobil Corporation. The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and are independent of sources providing support." Yes, certainly :-)

EARHART This stared with White Star Oil. That leaves OLIN & BRADLEY foundations without obvious oil ties.

Looking at one individual is a bit akin to obsession with one groundstation, but given the impetus:

5) MCKITRICK It is nontrivial to prove many indirect payments, but there are lots of plausible questions. a) McKitrick (and McIntyre) did have trips paid to Washington via CEI or GMI.

How does one count being heavily promoted around Washington (Ebell (CEI) p.120, A.9.2, p.162, etc), and being introduced to Inhofe and being promoted by him? And later, Barton? I have no idea how to place monetary value on that, but PR is worth something. How often is such exposure available to Guelph professors? How about getting written up on first page of WSJ? b) He wrote that piece for CEI. Maybe there a few EM $$ there, but not many. I'd never make a big deal of that. c) Of course, working with GMI means working with O'keefe, i.e., close to API & EM, which I actually consider more relevant than the EM portion of any possible small fees. d) He became a GMI "expert" in 2004. That may well be unpaid, as many people sign up to be "advisors" or "Experts." He was also a Heartland Expert (HeartExp#1, p.97). e) McKitrick in 2007 was the "Coordinator" for the ISPM produced by Fraser: http://www.fraserinstitute.org/COMMERCE.WEB/product files/Independent%20Summ ary5.pdf (Writers: D'Aleo, Khandekar, Kinninmonth, Essex, Karlen, Karner, Clark, Murty, O'Brien. I really should have included that in my report). This is a nicely-produced document. Did anyone get paid for this work? Who knows? It could be, or people might happily do it for free to keep their names out there. f) Table A.6.2(a) Shows people versus activities. McKitrick spoke at the 2008 and 2009 Heartland conferences in NYC. Did he get any expenses paid? If so, where did that money come from? (That one is really murky). f) He spoke at Helmer2009 (p.86) in Europe. g) For more oil connections, see p.138. Of the 4 think tanks he mentions there: SPPI (p.74): ??, but SPPI's Rob Ferguson was EM-funded just before he spunoff. CO2Science (CSCDGC, p.57) some money from EM and SSF Friends of Science (FoS) - Alberta oil CEI - shown above. h) See his short C.V: http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/cv.html (his 2003 book with Essex) "was awarded the $10,000 Donner Prize for Best Book on Canadian Public Policy." That sounds good...

"The annual Donner Awards, sponsored by the Donner Canadian Foundation and administered by the Fraser Institute," http://www.fraserinstitute.org/newsandevents/news/6977.aspx

5) SUMMARY "X is paid by Exxon" is usually very unlikely, and it's unfortunately a fairly useless question that in fact, people would *like* to be asked, because they can say NO.

The money-laundering architecture is brilliantly designed, with only rare slipups. a) Direct payments: almost never findable, if they exist at all. b) Indirect payments for work, as Heartland paying $140K to Fred Singer for NIPCC: sometimes. c) Indirect payments for expenses, maybe speakers' fees: sometimes. There are many more ways to steer money to somebody without leaving obvious tracks. d) Hard-to-calibrate worth of publicity, contact, etc: very often, and very cost-effective, as "wish for attention" is a powerful motivator, and it is very cheap. From: John R. Mashey To: "Tom Wigley"; "Naomi Oreskes" Cc: [email protected]; "Thomas Crowley"; [email protected]; "Dr. Krishna AchutaRao"; "Myles Allen"; "Natalia Andronova"; "Tim C Atkinson"; "Rick Anthes"; "Caspar Ammann"; "David C. Bader"; "Tim Barnett"; "Eric Barron"; "Bench, Graham"; "Pat Berge"; "George Boer"; "Celine J. W. Bonfils"; "Bono, James A."; "Boslough, Mark B"; "James Boyle"; "Ray Bradley"; "Robin Bravender"; "Keith Briffa"; "Wolfgang Brueggemann"; "Lisa Butler"; "Ken Caldeira"; "Peter Caldwell"; "Dan Cayan"; "Peter U. Clark"; "Amy Clement"; "Nancy Cole"; "William Collins"; "Tina Conrad"; "Curtis Covey"; "birte dar"; "Davies Trevor Prof"; "Jay Davis"; "Tomas Diaz De La Rubia"; "Andrew Dessler"; "Dettinger, Michael"; "Phil Duffy"; "Ehlenbach, Paul J."; "Kerry Emanuel"; "James Estes"; "Eyring, Veronika"; "David Fahey"; "Chris Field"; "Peter Foukal"; "Melissa Free"; "Julio Friedmann"; "Bill Fulkerson"; "Inez Fung"; "Jeff Garberson"; "PETER GENT"; "Nathan Gillett"; "peter gleckler"; "Bill Goldstein"; "Hal Graboske"; "Paul Gross"; "Tom Guilderson"; "Leopold Haimberger"; "Alex Hall"; "James Hansen"; "harvey"; "Klaus Hasselmann"; "Susan Joy Hassol"; "Gabi Hegerl"; "Isaac Held"; "Bob Hirschfeld"; "Jeremy Hobbs"; "Dr. Elisabeth A. Holland"; "Greg Holland"; "Brian Hoskins"; "mhughes"; "James Hurrell"; "Ken Jackson"; [email protected]; "Gardar Johannesson"; "Philip D. Jones"; "Helen Kang"; "Thomas R Karl"; "David Karoly"; "Jeffrey Kiehl"; "Steve Klein"; "Knutti Reto"; "John Lanzante"; [email protected]; "Ron Lehman"; "John lewis"; "Lloyd, Steven A. (GSFC-610.2)[R S INFORMATION SYSTEMS INC]"; "Jane Long"; "Janice Lough"; "mann"; [email protected]; "Linda Mearns"; "carl mears"; "Jerry Meehl"; "Jerry Melillo"; "George Miller"; "Norman Miller"; "Art Mirin"; "Mitchell, John FB"; "Phil Mote"; "Neville Nicholls"; "Gerald R. North"; "Astrid E.J. Ogilvie"; "Stephanie Ohshita"; "Tim Osborn"; "Ostro, Stu"; [email protected]; "Joyce Penner"; "Thomas C Peterson"; "Tom Phillips"; "David Pierce"; [email protected]; "V. Ramaswamy"; "Ramanathan, Veerabhadran"; "Sarah Raper"; "Phil Rasch"; "Kathryn Rauhut"; "Doug Rotman"; "Terry L. Root"; "Sausen, Robert, DLR"; "jsanter"; "John Schellnhuber"; "David Schimel"; "Michael Schlesinger"; "Gavin Schmidt"; "Christina L. Schomer"; "Stephen H Schneider"; "Lynda Seaver"; "Dian J. Seidel"; "Ted Sheppard"; [email protected]; "Adrian Simmons"; [email protected]; "brian soden"; "Susan Solomon"; "Ken Sperber"; "Anne Stark"; "Thomas Stocker"; "Ronald J Stouffer"; [email protected]; "Karl Taylor"; "claudia tebaldi"; "Teixeira, Joao P"; "Simon Tett"; "Tombrello, Thomas A."; "David Thompson"; "Lonnie Thompson"; "ELLEN THOMPSON"; "Thorne, Peter"; "Mike Wallace"; "Bud Ward"; "Warrilow, David (GA)"; "Warren Washington"; "Andrew Weaver"; "Michael Wehner"; "Frank Wentz"; "Whetton, Penny"; "Dean N. Williams"; "Gordon Yano"; "Francis W. Zwiers"; "Conway, Erik M"; "Sanjay Khanna"; "Graham Cogley"; "Jeffrey Kargel"; "W. Crawford Elliott"; "John Weyant"; "Anthony Janetos"; "Sowden, Alison"; "Vernon Squire"; "Eric Garen"; "Peter Cross"; "Charles Zeller"; "Ian Murdock"; "Victoria A Arroyo"; "Rashida Leonard"; "Stephanie Fontenoy"; "John Collee"; "Sarah-jane Potts"; "Greg Dutton"; "Richard B. Rood"; "Brien Seeley"; "Mark Seeley"; "Oliver Morton"; "Cheryl H"; "Somerville, Richard"; "Martin Heimann"; "Don Kennedy"; "Heidi Cullen"; "Shari Bell"; "Rebecca Bratspies"; "Pete Myers"; "Michael Oppenheimer" Subject: RE: response from Ross McKittrick re: possible Exxon connection Date: Friday, March 19, 2010 7:59:20 PM